Which Bible do the Lutherans use?

[Cary.Melvin]

What English Bible translation do Lutherans use in Church services? at home?

Thanks,

 

[Flipper]

We use the NIV, but my guess is that it is the translation of choice, since the Concordia Study Bible is in NIV.

However, Lutherans are not opposed to looking at other translations to get better clarification of a passage.

 

[filosofer]

That varies. For LCMS and WELS, the translation used in the hymnals is NIV. For ELCA, the hymnal of choice seems to be NRSV. Now, LCMS has opted for the ESV in the 2007 hymnal.

However, each congregation/pastor can make the choice as appropriate.

Personally I am not a fan of the NIV, so I have most often preached from NAS or NKJV. For a while I used GW, which is a good oral translation.

 

[filosofer]

BTW, for determining doctrine and settling doctrinal disputes, Luterhans use the original language texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), never a translation.

 

[Protoevangel]

Yea, the weekly readings are read from a NRSV at my church (ELCA).

Then again, at the beginning of the year, my church was pushing a "read-it-in-a-year" Bible that was NIV, called "Season's of Reflection".

 

[Phoebe]

The LBW- green hymnal- was printed when we were using the RSV. Our weekly lessons and Gospel are now from the NRSV.

(ELCA)

I prefer not to use the NIV for my own study.

 

[Bradford]

I use an RSV w/ Apocrypha, my church (Missouri Synod) is already using the ESV, new pastor HATES the NIV with a passion! (As do I, so it works well!)

 

[PuppyforChrist]

I have a NIV Bible, but it's a teen devotional Bible. My church uses the NRSV Bible. It's been that way for a while.

 

[theologia crucis]

Personally, I use the ESV (or revised RSV!), but I'll check some of the notes in my NIV Conordia Self Study Bible, as well as occassionally my Concordia Self Study Commentary. I intend to start learning Greek sometime in the near future.

 

[Flipper]

There has been talk in our church about switching to the NSRV. Pastor will go either way, but our DCE hates the NIV too.

 

[JVAC]

What English Bible translation do Lutherans use in Church services? at home?

Thanks,

I use NIV most, but I have an NRSV that helps keep my teachers sane. I was thinking about getting a NKJV I heard they are good, but I will wait until after I learn classical greek.

-James

 

[filosofer]

I was thinking about getting a NKJV I heard they are good, but I will wait until after I learn classical greek.

-James

While I taught myself Greek before going to seminary, I also took the year course there under Robert Hoerber. Best thing I ever did. He had recently finished serving as one of the translators of the NKJV.

I consider NAS and NKJV to be the best of the formal equivalent translations.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

I personally own KJV and NIV bibles, but I prefer the NIV. My congregation uses NIV. I think part of my preferance toward the NIV comes from being raised lds where KJV was the only bible allowed. My friend gave me an NIV during my struggle and being able to understand it better then the KJV helped me grow a lot.

BTW, for determining doctrine and settling doctrinal disputes, Luterhans use the original language texts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), never a translation.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I am almost "anti-KJV". I don't speak old English and I can't understand it. I figure if I am going to learn a language to read the bible it is not going to be "old English" but rather Greek or Hebrew. Plus, it was not translated from the more recently discovered older manuscripts.

I like NIV...I can understand it. I am weaning myself from it though and going to ESV. They seem similar--although the NIV reads just a tad more smoothly. I also strongly prefer the term "flesh" to "sinful nature"--and ESV uses that term.

Peace

Rose

 

[filosofer]

Here are a few problem areas with ESV, especially John 20:23:

Overall, NAS tends to be choppy, but in those specific passages (and others I have found), the ESV is not only choppy, it presents unnatural English.

Isaiah 22:17
ESV "... He will seize firm hold on you"
NAS95 "And He is about to grasp you firmly"

The NAS correctly uses the adverb.

Isaiah 63:10
ESV "therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them"
NAS95 "Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them."

It seems that the ESV is missing the word "he" before "himself" (read it aloud to catch the incongruence).

Jeremiah 10:25
ESV "Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and on the peoples that call not on your name."
NAS95 "Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not know You and on the families that do not clal Your name."

The ESV is inconsistent in placing the negative. In this case, it is awkward, yet in other places the negative is placed with the helping verb ("do") as in the NAS.

Jeremiah 12:6
ESV "... they are in full cry after you"
NAS95 "...even they have cried aloud after you."

One has to ask what does "full cry" mean to the average speaker/reader of English in this sentence.

Jeremiah 12:11
ESV "... but no man lays it to heart."
NAS95 "... because no man lays it to heart"
NKJV "... because no one takes it to heart"

I would say that both present unnatural English; NKJV does better.

Jeremiah 31:8
ESV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and her who is in labor, together..."
NAS95 "Behold, I am bringing them from the north country and I will gather them from the remote parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together..."
NKJV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the ends of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and the one who labors with child, together..."

The ESV misses on two counts: The use of "her" is awkward and very unnatural. Also, the other elements in parallel all have the definite article in English, which would suggest that the NKJV has rendered the parallelism best.


John 20:23
ESV: If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.

NKJV: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

In the Greek the word KRATHTE has the sense of "hold fast, or retain" (BAGD, 448). The ESV misuses the word withhold in this context. Notice that it appears as if the ESV is claiming that disciples are controlling the forgiveness - "they are lording it over someone by withholding forgiveness." However, in the Greek, it is clear that what the disciples retain or hold against the person are the sins (plural - because the verb is in the plural), not the forgiveness (singular).


Not any accident that the hymnal committee will use ESV, EXCEPT John 20:23, where they will use the NKJV.

Why not use the NKJV?????

 

[ByzantineDixie]

OK, you've got my attention...(and I feel a bit better that my observation regarding the poor flow of words in the ESV was validated--sometimes I think my English language skills have regressed to the 8th grade level...you know, one memo at a time.)

Tell me more about how the NKJV was translated...were some of the errors of the KJV repaired in the NKJV? Did the translators consult with the newest oldests manuscripts available? How can I be assured it is one of the reasonably reliable translations?

I bought an ESV but was disappointed because the margin space doesn't allow for the copious notes I take...I am game to try another version if I can be assured of reasonable accuracy, reasonable readability and if it comes in a wide margin edition. My old wide margin NIV is too full of notes to continue to use it...I really have to get another bible.

One last clarification...I am hearing two different things...filo, you say that the ESV decision was made for the new hymnal. I had heard it was voted down from another source. Hmmmm.... Can you point me to the link so I can take that to my other source and advise them accordingly.

Thanks!-----R

 

[sculpturegirl]

Why do so many folks dislike the NIV? I think our church (ELCA) uses the Revised Standard Version, but I am not sure. It sounds way too colloqial and simple to me. I enjoy the more beautiful language.

I have a parallel Bible with the KJV and the Amplified side by side and I feel that is a great study tool! I studied Latin in college, but would like to know Greek, too. It is a ton of work to have a good handle on Greek, that's for sure.

 

[filosofer]

This will be in two parts because of length:

OK, you've got my attention...(and I feel a bit better that my observation regarding the poor flow of words in the ESV was validated--sometimes I think my English language skills have regressed to the 8th grade level...you know, one memo at a time.)

Any time a translation team follows what has been called the Formal Equivalence (FE) approach to translation, the issue will always arise as to whether the translation is presenting the target language in terms of style, grammar, etc. The advantage is that this approach can often provide a sense of the original (a perfect passive particple in Greek will be reflected in the English equivalent). By following the original language closely, the readability of the text in the target language may suffer. Thus, NAS, NKJV, ESV, KJV, Berk, RSV, NRSV, TaNaKh etc. All would be characterized as "choppy, wooden", etc.).

The other approach is called Meaning-Based (MB) translations. MB translations start with the premise that no one can ever provide a one-for-one (word-for-word) translation, and therefore the goal is to provide a phrase-for-phrase. Thus what might be one word in Greek might be rendered by a causual modifying phrase in English. In this category are translations such as NIV, GW, NLT, REB, TEV, CEV, NCV, etc.

Obviously this is a generalization, because there is a continuum of translations from rigidly word-for-word to very dynamic. On that scale, if the left represents literalistic (word-for-word) and the right (dynamic), some translations would line up this way:

ASV, WEB, NAS95, NKJV, KJV, RSV/ESV, NRSV, HCSB, REB, Beck, NIV, GW, NLT, NCV, TEV, CEV

Now, the question always arises: which is the most accurate translation? that is not an easy question to answer - what does the person mean by "accuracy"? A better way to phrase the question is: which translations provide the best insight to the original language texts? Phrased this way, it is best to have at least one translation of each approach, and two is better. These are excellent combinations:

NAS95/GW/NIV
NKJV/GW/NSRV
NAS95/NLT/ESV
NKJV/CEV/Beck
etc.

Now, when you have two translations that are widely different in a particular text, then the first question ought to be: what is it about the underlying original language text that is causing such a difference? Then the next question: how can these translations help me to better understand the intent of the original text?

Now, I believe that a FE translation is a necessary first step in getting handle on the text. Thus, I strongly encourage the NAS95 or NKJV. While each may have a peculiarity in phrasing, both are solidly aligned with the original languages texts. I have not found a passage in either that would even remotely hint at giving false theology. The same cannot be said for ESV (John 20:23) or NIV (Acts 3:21). In that regard, GW is better, even though it caused a stir by not using the English word "righteousness" in the NT for DIKAIOSUNH. Note carefully, I did not say that GW does not translate DIKAIOSUNH accurately; it just didn't use the common (to most English translations) English word for that purpose.

(BTW, I have all of the translations listed in this post, plus a few more)

 

[filosofer]

Tell me more about how the NKJV was translated...were some of the errors of the KJV repaired in the NKJV? Did the translators consult with the newest oldests manuscripts available? How can I be assured it is one of the reasonably reliable translations?

From the NKJV Preface:

In the preface of the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, known popularly as the King James Bible, state that it was not their purpose "to make a new translation... but to make a good one better." Indebted to the earlier work of William Tyndale and others, they sa their best contribution to consist in revising and enhancing the excellence of the English versions which had sprung from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. In harmony with the purpose of the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators, thus unlocking for today's readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures

The NKJV translators use what is called "Complete Equivalence Translation".

One of the keys of the NKJV is the desire to main the precision and form or cadence of the KJV. That is, regardless of one's views of the KJV, it is undeniable that the oral quality of the KJV is rarely matched. By that I don't mean a "Christiams - Easter" story "good old days" feeling. Rather, the cadence of spoken English that reflects the phrasing of the language. Syllable counts are as important as word counts. This is still a major concern when looking for a liturgical translation, and why I believe the ESV was chosen. If you examine the traditional liturgical texts, Psalm 116:12-14, 18-19 ("What shall I render to the Lord...") or Psalm 95:1-7a (Venite in Matins), you will see that as the text is sung, it has a rhthym of its own. The ESV matches those portions very well. So, liturgically the ESV makes sense.

(BTW, why was the NIV chosen for Lutheran Worship? - well, LCMS pulled out of the joint project with LCA and ALC in 1978 and determined to have its own hymnal. The LCMS requested to use the Psalms as they had been translated by the joint committee for translation in the Hymnal project; but the LCA refused. Thus, the LCMS was left without a translation. The NKJV was nearing completion, but wouldn't be ready in time for the hymnal. The NIV was chosen finally because the LCMS didn't have to pay royalty for the use of the translation. Of course, once the hymnal and catechisms had NIV, that led to the NIV push throughout the publishing effort. The Bible publishers did not lose out when they agreed to let LCMS use it for the hymnal.)

Anyway, the NKJV translators were all solid scholars, and used the best resources available, current and ancient. The decision was made to follow the essential textual base of the KJV (known as textus receptus); this was after long, serious discussion and debate because they knew the tremendous archaeological finds that had been made over the past 150 years. Nevertheless the ultimate decision was to use the TR. One major advantage of the NKJV is that the editors included in footnotes, when the Nestle-Aland text differed from the TR (and the Majority Text, as well). Thus, from the perspective of Bibles and translations it offers much insight to the textual situation that most lay people never see.

As I mentioned, Robert Hoerber was one of the NKJV translators, and he was a superb Greek scholar and writer (he also taught classical Greek and Latin, as well as Koine Greek, for more than 45 years). He had earned his PhD in Classics at the same time he was studying at the Seminary (back in the early 1940's).

 

[filosofer]

I have a parallel Bible with the KJV and the Amplified side by side and I feel that is a great study tool! I studied Latin in college, but would like to know Greek, too. It is a ton of work to have a good handle on Greek, that's for sure.

I'm glad to see that you use the Amplified Bible as a secondary Bible, and not the primary one. The Amplified Bible can give good insight but it also causes problems by presenting something out of context. By giving several alternatives for a Greek/Hebrew word in a specific instance, it almost appears that the specific Greek/Hebrew could mean any of those things. Ultimately, the meaning of the word is determined by, and derived from, context, that is, the surrounding words. Thus, to imply that a specific Greek/Hebrew word could mean one of several different words, because there are lexical (dictionary) definitions (or better glosses) available is not helping understanding the meaning of that word in this specific context.

This also leads to interpreting rather than translating in the Amplified Bible

Issues of translating vs. interpreting the text -- two examples:

1 Thessalonians 1:10

AMP: And [how you] look forward to and await the coming of His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead -- Jesus, Who personally rescues and delivers us out of and from the wrath [bringing punishment] which is coming [upon the impenitent] and draws us to Himself [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah].

Words inside [ ] indicate "amplified" phrasing, which are added to the text. First, note that the coming wrath is restricted by the added words [upon the impenitent]. The Greek text has

EK THS ORGHS THS ERXOMENHS (from the wrath, the coming).

There is nothing about the restriction of the wrath.

Even more questionable is the last added phrase [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah]. There is nothing in the Greek text that corresponds to this phrase. This is purely commentary, not translation, made to appear as if it is specifically intended by the Greek text. It is misleading to say the least.


1 Thessalonians 2:3

AMP: For our appeal [in preaching] does not [originate] from delusion or error or impure purpose or motive, nor in fraud or deceit.

The main concern here is with the first inserted text [in preaching]. The Greek word is PARAKLHSHS, often translated as exhorted or comforted. But nowhere is the connection made with this word and preaching, unless the word KHROUSW is present in the context. In other words, the AMP Bible has limited this appeal to a preaching context when the text does not allow such a restriction/limitation.

Also in this text, how many items are actually mentioned in the Greek text? From the AMP it would appear at first glance as if there are six items that Paul enumerates. Yet the Greek text has only three. Now the question arises, why the expansion? And then why those particular words for expansion because the six do not exhaust the semantic domains of the three Greek words? The reader is left with a false impression, twice in this verse alone, because the AMP Bible is not translating but interpreting and providing commentary.

------

There are many others that could be cited. But if you do not know Greek (in the cases of the NT), then at least check the NAS, NKJV, ESV, KJV, etc. translations and begin to get a sense of where translating ends and commentary begins.