Tyndale modeled his translation after Luther's.
Convention gawkers will have a chance to see Diaprax at work today. Church Mouse offered some valuable insights about Diaprax, and California added her own experiences from seeing it in WELS many decades ago. She knew the Valleskey, Kelm, Stadler bunch when they were young and foolish.
Diaprax is a process to get people to vote for and go along with whatever the manipulators wanted in the first place.
This is how it will work today. There are only two choices with the NNIV. One is to approve it. The Wisconsin Sect structure, filled with useful idiots, is already behind it 100%, heavily promoting it through the media and the Net (gasp! - does Wendland know?).
If Schroeder has shown any leadership on the issue, I missed it. Another Al Barry, he will continue to pose as a conservative while enabling and rewarding the apostates.
The second choice--the only alternative--is to delay the decision another two years. That comes from Team Patterson, so it smells like skunk cabbage on a humid day. If the convention votes to delay, WELS will have two years to pound everyone into submission. More likely, they will have no trouble passing it the second time around. With Diaprax, people are allowed to howl and moan in a safe situation, without voting. Given a second chance, they go along with the decision.
The third choice will not come up - to repudiate the NNIV now and decide on a KJV edition. That should strike people as ironic, because the Babtists hate the NNIV so much that they voted not to allow sales in their own bookstores. They hate the NNIV and love the KJV, which is really Luther's Bible in English.
The non-Lutherans have kept Luther's Bible in English alive. There are many choices, from the old update of the KJV (around 1800) to the New KJV, Modern KJV, KJV II, and KJV 21st Century. All this talk about a "Lutheran" Bible is silly because a Luther Bible already exists.
The New KJV has a bit of a Babtist tint, because they are behind it. As far as I know, the KJV 21 is the most faithful because only a few words are changed. "Our conversation is in heaven" really means "Our citizenship is in heaven." English has changed, but not so much that:
- Adam is a myth - NNIV.
- Genesis 4:1 is soft-core porn.
Beck was going to be a Lutheran Bible. And there is an Anderson Bible, if memory serves. Then Beck had to be revised and revised all over again. The so-called conservative Lutherans are so busy selling their non-Lutheran Bibles that they should call themselves Babel for confusing the tongues.
What used to be part of our language is now split up into so many versions that people carry around multiple translation editions, which also sell well.
---
-
well, yeah. Baptists. Sorry to say, but I'm more apt to invest time
in a group of people who are genuinely and culturally mistaken than
people (WELS) who purposefully alter Scripture to fit their agenda.
Baptist theology may not be any less wrong, but I think the Holy Spirit
hardens the hearts of those who purposefully amend and alter the Truth.
That is to say, I'd rather talk to Baptists (who read a True Scripture)
about Orthodoxy than trying to converse with a WELSian whose Scripture
changes with the wind.
The Baptists have a *load* of false doctrine in their Confession, but they still seem to be driven by a preEnlightenment train of thought--a mindset that approaches God with humility
The WELS, on the other hand, is quite postmodern in its doctrine of Justification. They claim all are justified when Christ arose but not really justified at all until a person has faith. UOJ exists, I'm beginning to think, so that pastors can say anything to anyone, diapraxing heathens into faith. So we should not be surprised when the WELS votes to ratify the NIV 2011, which also typifies the postmodern approach toward language.
Out of all the errorists in the WELS, I think half, with a total lack of humility, think of God as a trick miniature pony who can be directed according to the machinations of The Church. The other half of WELS' errorists are like the "artist" who befouls a canvas, then writes a poem about the glory of his own human ingenuity--reveling in himself, not as a means to an end, but as an end itself.
---
AC V has left a new comment on your post "NNIV Vote Today - Watch Diaprax at Work":
"...who befouls a canvas..."
um, yeah.
Anyhoo, can't go along with you on the Babtists bein' better than WELS. At least the official confessions of WELS holds to the efficacy of the Means of Grace. In WELS practice maybe not so much, but at least we've got a touchstone on paper to get our bearings.
