twissted.sisster has left a new comment on your post "From Intrepid Lutherans - The 2013 WELS Retreat fr...":
Leave it to the WELS to make indecisiveness their decision and waste time and money in doing so. I see it as a rubberstamp of the NNIV. They could have voted it out right then and there but instead NPH will now be able to use it at will. Buyers beware!
---
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/08/2013-wels-convention-and-endorsement-of.html#more
THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2013
2013 WELS Convention and the Endorsement of NIV 2011.
The following discussion was held on the Facebook Wall of Daniel Baker -- who was a delegate to this year's WELS Convention -- and is reproduced here with his permission. There are several points in this discussion worth consideration, and worth responding to -- sooner being better than later.
- Even though the 2011 Synod Convention called for the TEC to educate the laity so that they would be prepared for the task of choosing a translation, can anyone say there was much evidence that such had happened? Did the delegates display evidence suggesting they were prepared to thoughtfully deliberate the issues?
- What does it really mean to decide that "All translations are equally deficient, so we will use them all"...?
- What does it really mean when it is said that "All translations are equally God's Word, so it is a disparagement of God's Word to cast doubt on any of them"...?
- What does it really mean when it is said that "All translations are equally God's Word, isn't it wonderful that we have God's Word in so many forms"...?
- How crippling is the division in our Synod?
- Why is it that the "New Method Lutherans," in addition to harangue-ing everyone to become relevant by absorbing pop-culture into the church, also seem to be the one's pushing post-Modern linguistics?
- What do you think about endorsing a given translation (NKJV was suggested below), and mounting an education campaign targeted at the laity, with the specific purpose of warning about the dangers of "Dynamic Equivalence" and "Functional Equivalence" and identifying their roots in post-Modern philosophy, while building up the virtues of Formal and Optimal Equivalence?
- Knowing that the CoP and the entire faculties of MLC and WLS, along with what appears to be a majority of WELS Administrators, are on the side of the "New Method Lutherans," what would you think of such and effort knowing that it would come from outside those sources, and probably rely on scholarship from outside WELS?
Be assured, the "New Method Lutherans" see the endorsement of NIV 2011 alongside all other translation as a big opportunity to drive forward with the next big NIV release. They'll be better organized next time. And they are always better funded.
What other options or considerations may there be?
Daniel Baker
5 hours ago near New Ulm, MN
Here's a summary of the WELS Convention's translation issue:
- We approved all translations of Holy Scripture for use in our publications (the "eclectic approach").
- We gave NPH sole discretion to decide what translations to use.
- An overwhelming majority (over 3/4ths) voted against a Confessional Lutheran translation.
- Opposition to a "Confessional Lutheran Translation" seemed to be overwhelming. There were even a number of speakers and a proposed amendment to strike "Confessional Lutheran" from the Resolution.
- The outgoing editor of NPH was on the TFC, which supported and recommended NNIV.
- NNIV is clearly on the list of NPH options, and prior to an amendment was the first on a short list of three options for their use.
- Sem. Profs made it clear that the result of the "eclectic approach" would be settling on just one translation - by "herd" decision, as one pastor and televangelist delegate put it.
