 |
| WELS Forward in Christ. |
Bible translation study released | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS):
The Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC) has released the unedited, unevaluated results of a side-by-side review of three possible Bible translations WELS could use for its publications. More than 100 pastors participated in this review of the New International Version 2011 (NIV 2011), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) from April to October.
“We will be coming with our read on it, but what we first wanted to do was get it out there—raw and uncooked—so that everyone would have a chance to let the evaluation speak for itself,” says Rev. Paul Wendland, TEC chairman.
The TEC, which had already compared differing passages between the NIV 1984 and the NIV 2011 and presented its preliminary findings at the 2011 convention, organized this study in an effort to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each translation as well as to involve more people in the process.
For the study, the Bible was divided into 34 different sections, and three different pastors reviewed each section from each translation. These reviewers came from three distinct groups: synod leaders, pastors from each district who attended a 2012 translation workshop, and pastors who have been in the ministry for less than 12 years. Reviewers read and evaluated their section and rated the quality of the English style as well as the translational acceptability of each translation. They also were asked to list their section’s five greatest strengths and weaknesses by citing specific passages for each translation.
“Everyone knew that we were asking a lot and yet look at what they did . . . there’s enough for 20 term papers,” says Wendland. “They all gave themselves to it—whatever their perspective—to the fullest degree. And they all did a lot of really hard work in trying to help the synod come to a decision.”
Participants appreciated the opportunity to be involved. “I have grown personally, professionally, and certainly spiritually by this exercise,” writes one of the younger pastors. “And so, for this opportunity to compare the translations and get into the Greek outside of sermon preparation, I sincerely thank you.”
The next step for the TEC is to evaluate the review and prepare its final report for the 2013 synod convention, which will be discussing which translation WELS should use in its publications. “I think this data will be extremely helpful as we think through the various options that are open for us,” says Wendland. “And as we go forward, no matter what version we use, these studies will be extremely helpful in equipping pastors and laypeople about problem passages.”
Wendland says that it’s not surprising that this new translation is causing some debate in Christian churches in general. “Not all people are going to agree,” he says. “I think in our midst what it probably indicates more than anything else is the love that God’s people have for the Word and their desire to have a text of the Bible that clearly communicates God’s sacred truth.”
He also says the committee is open to any reaction about this study. “I would simply encourage everyone to study the results, to listen—especially to brothers and sisters who may not see things exactly the same way you do—and to give them your love and respect if not your acquiescence. Finally trust that the Word of God is going to be retained among us because of his promise that the grass withers and that the flowers may fall, but the Word of God is going to remain forever [Isaiah 40:8], not because of our doing and striving.”
Read the results of the study at www.wels.net/translation.
'via Blog this'
***
GJ - All propaganda to advance a bad cause sounds alike. This article reminds me of the publication from the ALC and LCA in their magazines, to prepare the ALC for getting rid of Biblical inerrancy.
The ALC had an interesting position on this. The old ALC merger of 1930 (Buffalo, Iowa, Ohio) watered down inerrancy to satisfy Reu and the Iowa fence-straddlers. Lenski objected, so they silenced him, even though he had been their New Testament professor and a district president.
Reu later became more conservative, a transition never forgiven by the Iowa liberals or anyone else in the ALC-LCA constellation.
For the 1960 merger of the old ALC and Norwegian Synod, inerrancy was affirmed in the constitution but expelled in an appendix, to please both sides. Error loves ambiguities. The raging liberals could be told, "We got rid of that." The inerrancy people could be soothed with, "We affirmed inerrancy."
All the Lutheran groups were waging war against the historical position of the Christian Church, Biblical inerrancy, from 1930 on.
Therefore, when The ALC and the LCA were preparing to merge with the Seminex UOJ gay faction, they began publishing more anti-inerrancy material to exorcise that demon from their doctrinal position.
The Lutheran magazine (LCA) and The Lutheran Standard (ALC) ran the same article. The ALC version showed a motorcycle doing a wheelie. The title was something like, "The Word of God: Pure Power." The LCA title was considerably weaker, but the content was the same in both.
The gushing and emoting in the WELS article would make a romance novel writer blush. It is so icky-mushy-fake that Lutherans might pause and remember the look of rage on Wendland's face as person after person--even a DP--rose to attack his precious New NIV.
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "WELS NNIV Diaprax: Bible translation study release...":
92% of reviewers rated the NIV2011 the best of the three translations. [GJ - Limited choice.]
Comments by those who reviewed the translations:
1)”One cannot properly evaluate the translation of any given book (in my case, Genesis) when that book must be viewed in isolation from the rest of Scripture. Being directed to do so severely limits and skews any evaluation given…. Weren’t we correctly taught that one of the “bedrock” principles of Bible interpretation is that “Scripture must interpret Scripture”? How, then, can we properly study (or evaluate) Bible passages or books of the Bible in isolation?”
2)”While reviewing Genesis was my “sole responsibility” (and while I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this effort) the TEC is unnecessarily (and I believe unwisely) depriving itself of the insights and concerns I and others feel compelled to express regarding various “deal breakers” in other books.”
3) “Limiting the reviewer to only the five “best” and five “weakest” passages per translation can and most likely will skew the review. Someone could incorrectly conclude that the reviewer has a “balanced” (good vs bad) view that, in fact, does not exist regarding a particular translation…. A thorough-going, honest review should be able to take the total weight of strengths and weaknesses into account, and the reviewer should be allowed to express the full results of his work. Yet we are directed not to do so. Again, I ask, “Why?””
4) “A significant “deal breaker” criterion for me is the “Decision page” that is found in every HCSB I have…. Unfortunately, NO REVIEWER of any of the Bible’s 66 books is allowed to comment on that significant deficiency in light of the restrictive evaluation criteria we have been given.”
http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/Reviewers%20Comments%20Translation%20Criteria.pdf
All 2012 Translation Evaluation reports:
http://www.wels.net/about-wels/synod-reports/bible-translation/report-102/2012-translation-evaluation-report-102
