Which Bible do the Lutherans use?

[ByzantineDixie]

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

This is cool (Although I am surpised to see the REB to the LEFT of the NIV!!! All of my friends at church use that version because they like the way it sounds...I think it's speaking in tongues myself!)

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.

I don't know why I am skeptical about this...I guess using the textus receptus as the basis is my problem. And I struggle with how much influence the language of the KJV has on the newer translation. I have never had an appreciation for the poetic language of the KJV nor saw the need for it to even be poetic. Obviously, all of this is more out of ignorance on my part than anything else. I guess it wouldn't hurt to just buy a NKJV and try it out. (I don't seem to be going forth in confidence yet!!!)

Thanks filo,

Rose

 

[filosofer]

Ah yes, poetry is in the ear of the beholder. Actually the oral aspect of Scripture translation is very important, but not the deciding factor. I think you would find ESV more poetic than NIV. (BTW, I have never been a fan of the NIV.)

I guess, if I had to choose only one translation it would be NAS95.

 

[filosofer]

Another issue related to language is the idea of continuity - specifically between generations. Of course, this concerns liturgy and hymnody as well as Bible translation. Thus, if changes are made, what affect does that have on the ability of previous generationsand current generations to worship together. A classic example is the Lord's Prayer. I think it was a bad move, liturgically, to change the Lord's Prayer as was done in LW. Rather, it could have been written this way to update it:

Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your Name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Notice that only five words have been changed, the rhythm is the same, and so someone who prays with the traditional English version can still liturgically pray with those who use this prayer.

So, also with the Bible translation. While it may be less understandable, the rhythm of Psalm 23 as known in the KJV is important for pastoral ministry, particularly with shut-ins. How crucial is it to maintain that when several generations gather in the hospital for devotions, and they can all recite it, with contemporary wors, yet retain the traditional cadence? From my 25+ years, it is very important.

Just some ramblings from an old codger...

 

[Music4Hym777]

At my church we use the CEV (Contemporary English Version), but for my own personal study I use a mix of NIV and NLT.

 

[JVAC]

7 JVAC posts in a Row, one more will make it 9!!!

-James

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Another issue related to language is the idea of continuity - specifically between generations. Of course, this concerns liturgy and hymnody as well as Bible translation. Thus, if changes are made, what affect does that have on the ability of previous generationsand current generations to worship together. A classic example is the Lord's Prayer. I think it was a bad move, liturgically, to change the Lord's Prayer as was done in LW. Rather, it could have been written this way to update it:



Notice that only five words have been changed, the rhythm is the same, and so someone who prays with the traditional English version can still liturgically pray with those who use this prayer.

So, also with the Bible translation. While it may be less understandable, the rhythm of Psalm 23 as known in the KJV is important for pastoral ministry, particularly with shut-ins. How crucial is it to maintain that when several generations gather in the hospital for devotions, and they can all recite it, with contemporary wors, yet retain the traditional cadence? From my 25+ years, it is very important.

Just some ramblings from an old codger...

You make a valid point. Want to know why I was gradually moving to the ESV? Because I didn't want to be left behind...part of the anachronistic group that wouldn't get with the program and change with the times. The continuity issue is interesting...a little tougher to appreciate for me personally though...then again....

The blue hymnal is all I have ever known--and truth be told, I have never been crazy about it. The NIV is the only bible I have ever read...short of a period in college when I read the Good News Bible and a very brief period when I experimented with the Amplified. But growing up RCC after Vatican II change was the order of the day...nothing stayed the same for long and things changed whether the congregations whined about it or not. I guess I just brought that "OK, here we go again" attitude with me over to the LCMS!

However, I first saw the importance of having the "right" bible version for the situation when my father-in-law was enduring his last few months of life with lung cancer. My sister-in-law had the wherewithal to read to him from the King James Version...the version familiar to him...and it really provided a lot of comfort. In fact, in my caregiving class they taught us to ask the person we are visiting for their bible when reading something from Scripture so they will hear the version most familiar to them.

And even I, when I attend church with my brother's family (still RCC) appreciate the fact that there are some parts of the liturgy that I remember word for word from my childhood.

Ah...I guess as much as I'd like to seem myself as "with the program" and a change agent...I do understand and maybe will even learn to value the continuity factor.

But please...don't let anyone read from the blue hymnal to me when I am on my death bed!!!

Peace

Rose

 

[Rechtgläubig]

Why do so many folks dislike the NIV?

We use it, as I stated earlier, but from what I read there are still many translation issues that we have with it. Here is a list of "proposed changes" and reasons behind the changes. This is just an FYI, I can't argue for/against any of them, but only post them for anyone interested...

http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/w/wlsniv/wlsniv.htm

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I went to the Christian bookstore today on my way back from Atlanta and checked out both the NKJV and the NAS??. I see what you mean about the footnotes in the NKJV. Those appear to be very interesting.

But the NAS?? appeals to me as well. I have a question with these. Nowhere did I see the notation NAS95. I saw NASB Updated with a '95 copyright as the most recent printing. Would this be a NAS95?

You know what would make things perfect? A parallel bible, NKJV and NAS95, with cross references and wide margins. Then I wouldn't have to make any decisions.

I don't mind having multiple versions around for study but I do a lot of study away from home...church, other people's homes, even at work. I really only want to carry around one bible. At this point I am leaning toward the NKJV because of the footnotes but I still have some reservations. I have to think on this....just a little more.

Peace

Rose

 

[filosofer]

I went to the Christian bookstore today on my way back from Atlanta and checked out both the NKJV and the NAS??. I see what you mean about the footnotes in the NKJV. Those appear to be very interesting.

But the NAS?? appeals to me as well. I have a question with these. Nowhere did I see the notation NAS95. I saw NASB Updated with a '95 copyright as the most recent printing. Would this be a NAS95?

Yes.

You know what would make things perfect? A parallel bible, NKJV and NAS95, with cross references and wide margins. Then I wouldn't have to make any decisions.

My ideal would be a four column bible: NAS95, NKJV, GW, and NA27 (Greek) NT/BHS (Hebrew) OT.

I don't mind having multiple versions around for study but I do a lot of study away from home...church, other people's homes, even at work. I really only want to carry around one bible. At this point I am leaning toward the NKJV because of the footnotes but I still have some reservations. I have to think on this....just a little more.
[/QUOTE]

I know the desire. I usually take the NAs, but have been know to take the NKV, and occasionally ESV, GW.

 

[theologia crucis]

filo,

Out of curiosity, what's your take on GW? I know it's essentially a Lutheran translation, but I kind of shy away from it because of the non-use of theological terms, like justification.

But, it does (if I remember right) translate what is usually translated as "nation of Israel" as "congregation of Israel" in the OT, which is what I've been told is more accurate... (does that make any sense?! I've been working on my house all day, and my brain cells are just about dead!)

Thanks!

 

[Bulldog]

I thought Lutherans used the New World Translation...

 

[Protoevangel]

I thought Lutherans used the New World Translation...

Die! Heretic!

Seriously, that's not funny.