Translation Evaluation Committee report | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS):
WELS' Translation Evaluation Committee has completed its report for delegates to the 2013 synod convention. In the report, the committee outlines two options that it sees for deciding which Bible translation to use in WELS publications going forward.
In "Option 1," WELS adopts NIV 2011 for use in materials produced by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH). In "Option 2," WELS does not adopt a single Bible version for use in its publications at this time, and NPH uses whichever version of these three (ESV, HCSB, NIV 2011) seems best for the passage cited and the publication in which the biblical text will appear ("eclectic approach").
WELS' Translation Evaluation Committee was created in 2010 when news was received that the NIV 84, the official translation currently used in WELS publications, was being phased out and replaced with what is often referred to as NIV 2011. The committee consists of Rev. Paul Wendland, president of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary; Rev. John Braun, vice president of publishing at Northwestern Publishing House; Rev. Kenneth Cherney Jr., professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary; Rev. Thomas Nass, professor at Martin Luther College; and Rev. Joel Petermann, president of Michigan Lutheran Seminary.
Over the past three years, the Translation Evaluation Committee has thoroughly researched the NIV 2011 along with other versions, notably the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). In 2012, the committee coordinated a review of these three translations in which the entire Bible was divided into 34 sections. Three WELS pastors were assigned to review each section in each translation, totaling 102 reviewers. Each reviewer noted the strongest and weakest passages in each translation, along with each translation’s appropriateness of English style and its overall acceptability for WELS as a publication translation.
The results of the review confirmed the committee’s conclusions that each translation has strengths and weaknesses. The majority of reviewers preferred the NIV 2011, with 86 percent of the reviewers rating the NIV 2011 higher than the ESV in overall acceptability for their section and 70 percent rating the NIV 2011 higher than the HCSB. In all of the 34 sections, at least one reviewer rated NIV 2011 the best.
As the Translation Evaluation Committee notes in its report to the 2013 synod in convention, “From the ‘Review of the 102,’ our own findings, and literally hundreds of conversations in which we have participated in various forums around our synod, two options have emerged, given as Option 1 and Option 2. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but the Translation Evaluation Committee sees either as entirely defensible and viable. Our recommendation is that the synod would discuss the matter thoroughly in the coming months, and then choose either Option 1 or Option 2 at the synod convention.”
The committee outlines advantages and disadvantages to each option in its convention report. Paul Wendland, chairman of the committee, emphasizes, “As a committee we are convinced that all the precious truths of our faith are clearly taught in all the translations we have considered. They have all been translated by people who have a high view of Scripture and who see the Bible’s message centering in Christ.”
Examples to support the committee’s conclusions—as well as many other documents created by the Translation Evaluation Committee to keep WELS members informed on the translation discussion—can be found at www.wels.net/translation.
The committee’s work is isolated to choosing a translation for use in WELS publications. The synod does not mandate which translation congregations or members should use.
View an optimized online version of the report to the 2013 synod in convention.
 |
| Why not? |
'via Blog this'
***
GJ - See ChurchMouse and RogueLutheran posts on diaprax.
 |
| Moo, the NNIV salesman from Wheaton College, is the WELS expert on the NNIV's superiority. |
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/02/wels-your-diaprax-is-showing.html
Yup. NIV2011 or else!
Even if they do vote for option 2, do we really expect to see anyone who gets published in official synod propaganda to admit that the NIV2011 is inferior to the ESV or HCSB by using either of those translations?
Why limit it to just those 3 options? Why not add the KJV in? We used it for decades, or is the KJV now heresy, since it is clear on justification by faith alone?
So yeah, the translation of this report from WELS-speak to normal
English is:
"Vote for the NIV2011 now, or vote for option 2 and we'll continue complaining about how bad the ESV and HCSB are compared to the NIV2011 until the next synod convention, where, since all articles and materials will have been published with the NIV2011, we'll bring this vote thing up again. And don't you dare think about using something other than these three!"
