 |
| Naughty NIV 2011: Adam and Eve were not real people, and.... |
KJV Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Pastor Nathan Bickel:
The prolonged
WELS consideration of NIV 11 and the TEC’S Role -
Should a fox population draw up architectural
plans for the community’s hen houses?
I cannot
help but think, that WELS is taking its time with the translation issue, and in
the process desensitizing its membership to the New NIV 11. Why else, then,
would the synodical four-part Bible "translation study," which includes
the New NIV 11, be in the consideration mix of two other translations, in the
same Bible study? The two other Bible translations are, the ESV and the Holman
Christian Study Bible, - both, of which are considered to be non gender
neutral, unlike the (politically correct) NIV 11 gender neutral Bible – the
(supposed) “improvement” from the notorious 2005 TNIV.
Added to this
slanted (TEC) Bible study has been the TEC'S (Translation Evaluation
Committee's) own recommendation that the new gender neutral NIV 11 would be
suitable for WELS synodical use. To such I ask myself:
“And,
what logical conclusion can be drawn, but that the New NIV 11 will be WELS next
officially (approved) translation for synodical use? I think that part of the
reason for the long drawn out affair, is to wear down the opposition and curry
more of the membership’s approval favor to recognize the New NIV 11 as just
another alternative, to the non gender neutral translations of the ESV and the
HCSB. Also, by taking all this time, those in favor of the NIV 11, will have
more time to gather their forces together for the synodical convention, when
another important decision will be made concerning this whole translation
issue.”
Those within WELS, pushing the new NIV 11, don't care (or, haven't seriously)
thought of all the people that they will be offending. Instead, it is too easy
and convenient to mark those who disagree with their new NIV 11 bent, as
sinning against the 8th Commandment for expressing spirited disagreement, with
the whole translation consideration issue.
Following is
an email I sent to a high profile WELS pastor involved with the ongoing
translation issue process. I voiced my concerns and have never (to my
knowledge) received a response email. His silence is deafening and leads me to
believe that concerns like mine are considered inconsequential and frivolous.
In fact, this following letter is the 2nd email communication
regarding the same issue, of which he has failed to respond, or even
acknowledge:
Dear Pastor
--------,
It greatly
distresses my wife and me that WELS would even consider the NIV11 as an option
for official WELS publications, as it looks to a different Bible translation to
replace the 1984 NIV.
I keep
reading that WELS and our local congregation is committed to Christian belief
and practice, based upon the inerrant Word of God. However, the very
consideration of the gender neutral NIV11, renders that professed resolve,
inconsistent.
Adopting a
gender neutral Bible is tantamount to messing with God's Word. I prefer to
liken it to "molestation" of God's written revelation. Adopting
gender neutrality in Scripture is humanly micro managing and tweaking Scripture
to suit one's own (carnal political correctness, Bible study slothfulness, or,
whatever) desires and / or, ends. There is no Scriptural or rational excuse to
intentionally remove and / or alter Scripture's patriarchal language. Doing so,
would be akin to literary revisionism, - as altering other literary works of
antiquity, such as Homer's Iliad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Josephus’ writings,
etc. Even in the secular world, I’m convinced that many would consider this type
of editing alteration, unconscionable.
Scripture,
itself makes it clear that "every word of God is pure." Scripture,
(itself) also states that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God" [God-breathed - the very words]
- [Proverbs 30:5-6 ; 2 Timothy 3:14-17]
If WELS
leadership and congregational pastors would be (Biblically) wise, they would
drop the NIV11 consideration from the mix of options. Presently, I'm reminded
of the Scriptural reality: ".....Wherefore come out from among them, and
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will
receive you....." [2 Corinthians 6:14-18 - in context]
Pastor,
-------- I urge you to do your part in calling for a halt to the WELS
consideration of a gender neutral Bible, and, also to help lead and encourage
WELS pastors and congregations to do the same. Also, I believe that there is no
need to bottleneck the process of selecting a different translation by
including a gender neutral one, in the mix.
As I
mentioned at the beginning of this short email, - "I keep reading that
WELS and our local congregation is committed to Christian belief and practice,
based upon the inerrant Word of God. However, the very consideration of the
gender neutral NIV11 renders that professed resolve, inconsistent." Not
only would I describe this present action of WELS "inconsistent," but
also irresponsible.
Finally, I
never thought I'd witness the day that a Conservative Lutheran Christian
denominational church body would ever entertain adopting a gender neutral
translation, which, essentially, departs from the Reformation sola scriptura
principle. I can't believe that our Triune God ever intended that His Word (and
very words) be conveyed in any other way than what His Holy Spirit breathed to
His inspired human authors.
Sincerely,
Nathan M.
Bickel
---------------------------------
I believe
that this prolonged drawn out affair will end up with WELS accepting the
politically correct New NIV 11 for its synodical and congregational usage. And,
I believe that it is being partially spun by the TEC, this way, quoting from
the aforementioned WELS translation Bible study – Lesson 4:
"We
expect that the primary way in which most WELS people experience most of the
Bible most of the time is by hearing it read - in the context of the public
worship service. Consideration must therefore be given to a translation's
suitability for being read aloud........."
- TEC'S own words
In Lesson 3 is this:
“As
language changes, why is it difficult for one generation to “give up” the way
they are used to speaking for the sake of another generation? Why will it be necessary for someone to make
a sacrifice? Who will make that
sacrifice?”
There you have it - a clear indication of this [supposed]
"objective" committee pushing
for the new NIV 11. Breaking these two quotes down, what the TEC is actually
saying (in their own little code), is:
“……….We
think that most of the WELS membership, experience the Scriptures, basically in
the Sunday worship service. Even though the Scriptures are printed out, they
don’t read those Scriptures, in the worship service, nor, at home - but hear them read Sunday morning. We like the new NIV 11 because it sounds
better than all the other translations. We need a ‘dumbed down’ translation for
those unlearned laymen to hear. We need to appeal to the lowest common
denominator......
...........Furthermore,
its time for the present older 2 generations to give up their familiar Scripture
translation preference for the sake of the up and coming, younger 2 generations. That ‘sacrifice’ is the
honorable thing to do. And, it doesn’t matter if the translation is a gender
neutral one. After all, we must keep up with the politically correct culture.”
The above (aforementioned) reasoning makes me think of the past, when we
were youngsters, and when we would love to hear the adults (in family
gatherings) talk. We would gravitate to that adult talk and not expect them to
talk baby talk. We never thought that we were being discriminated against and
loved to listen to this “adult” talk. Nor, did our parents and aunts and uncles
ever feel that they needed to give up their adult conversation so that their
children could understand.
Finally, I think it offensive that part of the
TEC ‘S criteria would be to “dumb down” the Scriptures to appeal to a lower
standard of people communication. This is, at least, my clear impression of
their slanted 4 part Bible study!
Nathan M.
Bickel - emeritus pastor
 |
| "Let's play an innocent game of ping-pong." |
P.S.
It is my understanding that WELS now has a 100 person group of pastors, - (many of whom are young pastors) who are studying the TEC'S work with the translation issue. I would not doubt that their concerted work will be compiled and categorized so as to add to the Translation Evaluation Committee's presentation at the summer WELS convention.
I am under the impression that the young pastors won't be so apt to be critical of the TEC'S work, since one or more of the TEC'S members may have had some of these young pastors as seminary students. Hence, I ask myself the question:
“What type of honest, straight-forward and objective analysis will be given by this group of 100 pastors, since they may be (still) emotionally dedicated to their former professor (s) and loyal to the instruction given them by this same professor or professors?”
Furthermore, this whole process and the time that it is taking to come to some sort of synodical resolution, seems to me to smack, "suspicious." And, I would say, it appears, it is somewhat contrived and planned to reach a desired end, - namely to welcome the new NIV 11 with the fellowship of open arms, hugs and "holy" kisses.
Finally, it should be noted that most, if not all those on the TEC and the 100 pastor, man, woman, male and / or female - and, even possible transgender committee members [excuse me as I feel the political correctness need to cover all the gender bases so as not to offend anyone] have been schooled using the NIV 84 version. To them, it would seem, switching to an "up-graded" version is no "biggy" - even if the new NIV 11 gender neutral translation offends the WELS grandpa's and grandma's in their midst. After all, these old traditionalist octogenarians will soon all croak and then the Church can have a “decent updated, culturally accepted Biblical translation.” So goes the [flawed] thinking of some, I believe, - even if I express it in exaggerated terms........
