Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed: Ye Watchers and Ye Unholy Ones. Gibbs: "Always Watch the Watchers."

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Ye Watchers and Ye Unholy Ones.
Gibbs: "Always Watch the Watchers."

They burn Tyndale anew every time they turn against faithful translation.

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "WELS NNIV Promotion Continues. Brett Meyer Answers...":

[GJ - I added information in giant print.]

Those who submitted reviews in Group #1 were (91% chose the NNIV as the best translation):
Daniel Balge
Forrest Bivens - Fuller alumnus.
John Boeder
John Braun
Jon Buchholz - Church and Change's biggest pal.
Kenneth Cherney
Charles Degner
Brian Dose
Douglas Engelbrecht - Tim Glende's finger-puppet DP.
Harland Goetzinger
David Gosdeck
John Hartwig
Michael Hintz
James Huebner - Fuller Alumnus. Mocks the Word.
Daniel Koelpin
Paul Koelpin
Thomas Nass
Larry Olson - Fuller DMin - Women Ministers galore
Mark Paustian
Joel Petermann
Herbert Prahl
Paul Prange
John Schmidt
Jeffrey Schone
Raymond Schumacher
Michael Smith (ELS)
Allen Sorum - Don't get me started.
Ross Stelljes
Bill Tackmier
Joel Voss - Packers fan.
Paul Wendland - Chief NNIV Salesperson.
Keith Wessel
Paul Zell
Carl Ziemer

Those who submitted reviews in Group #2 were (74% chose the NNIV as the best translation):
:
Steven Bode
Brett Brauer
John Brug - Ordain women now!
Frederick Casmer
David Clark
Justin Cloute
Mark Cordes
Joel Fredrich - Defended errors of the NIV.
Matthew Frey
Joel Heckendorf
Roy Hefti
Charles Huebner
Curtis Jahn
Paul Janke - DP raised the bar for Left Foot of Fellowship
Michael Jensen
Thomas Jeske - Mark and Avoid's brother.
Brian Keller
Geoffrey Kieta
Thomas Kock
John Koelpin
Daniel Leyrer
Robert Meiselwitz
Joel Nitz
Jonathan Scharf
Mark Schewe
Eric Schroeder
John Schroeder
Jonathan Schroeder
Glenn Schwanke
John Seifert - CG enabler.
Earle Treptow
John Vieths
Daniel Witte
Paul Workentine

Those who submitted reviews in Group #3 were (82% chose the NNIV as the best translation):
:
Shaun Arndt
Jonathan Bergemann
John Bortulin
Nathan Buege
Geoffrey Cortright
Aaron Dolan
Kevin Draper
Thomas Engelbrecht
Nathan Ericson
James Grabitske
Jeremiah Gumm
Robert Guenther
Steven Hahm
Noah Headrick
Steven Hillmer
Paul Jansen
Shane Krause
Mark Luetzow
Jeremy Mattek
Stephen Meyer
Michael Novotny
Jason Oakland
David Panitzke
David Rosenau
David Salinas
Benjamin Schaefer
Peter Sulzle
Nathan Sutton
Benjamin Tomczak
Korey VanKampen
James Werner
Timothy Westendorf
David Wietzke
Ryan Wolfe

WELS watcher.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Ye Watchers and Ye Unholy Ones. Gibbs: "Always Wat...":

I recommend reading the comments from some of the reviewers regarding the projects review criteria.
http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/Reviewers%20Comments%20Translation%20Criteria.pdf

One in particular pointed out the reason why Luther's translation, from which the KJV is taken, is superior to the other viable options (BM - blasphemies) proposed by the (W)ELS apostates.

4) In points 2 and 4 of your evaluation criteria, you mention Luther. Ernst R. Wendland’s paper is often cited in this connection: “Martin Luther—The Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Translation.” (1995) I carefully study Luther’s German translation (along with Hebrew, Greek, Septuagint, and sundry other English translations) as a regular part of my sermon and Bible class preparation. A tool like Bibleworks 9 makes this simple. I sense that the “father” of the dynamic equivalent model wouldn’t recognize some of his purported “sons” or “children.” Luther’s gift in translating was in giving the German people a fluent, German Bible--that’s certainly true. But when I compare his translation with the current crop of English ones, I find that Luther often stays much closer to the original text. He preserves many more of the idioms and phrases of the original language. (His translation of “Same,” “seed,” comes to mind.) If “formal equivalent” is on the left-end of our scale, and “dynamic equivalent” is on the right-end, Luther stays somewhat further to the left, when compared to the NIV 2011 and the HCSB. It seems to me that the “dynamic equivalent model,” as it is currently used, tends to be somewhat more subjective in nature. Comparing Luther to the NIV 2011 or HCSB is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, in particular because Luther was a “Confessional” translator, first and foremost. We simply can’t say the same about the CBT or the HCSB translators. Can we?

---

California wrote:

There is an Ichabod posting today re: Hilarious WELS NNIV comments.

One observation contained in it is: "They had the young guys, worried about future calls, review the NNIV anonymously. How quaint."

Reminds me of the days when the abandonment of the KJV was the objective for just any alternative. That was before WELS finally settled on the NIV. Some seminary course notes someone gave me from that long ago time, seminary students had the assignment to investigate different translations with the unmistakable objective being to come to a conclusion that KJV must go in favor of some yet undetermined contemporary translation. The diaprax was alive and well even way back then. Involving the youngest stakeholders in the process, is the means intended to insure the desired outcome facilitated by professors, mentors, and seasoned change agents. Had the "youngers" not been manipulated into taking the already designated outcome, it would allow a lesser trauma to reverse a managed youthful position when or if there were an informed change of mind.

---