• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

LCMS Theology Commission

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Theology Commission of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod issues stern warning against use of NIV2011:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/l...ect-new-niv-bible-over-gender-language-81060/

The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind. Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church.
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Following the link:

Example one:
Genesis 1:26-27 in NIV 2011 reads: "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in our image, in our likeness, so that they [the plural pronoun is in the original] may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in his own image, in the image of God he created them [plural pronoun substitution for "him"]; male and female he created them."

In the first substitution of "mankind" for "man," the particularity of the first man is made unclear. The rationale for this would seem to be the desire to emphasize that all humanity is created in God's image, but the original text itself had made that abundantly clear already by paralleling "man" in the first clause of verse 26 with "they" in the following clause. In verse 27, the second substitution of "mankind" for "man" again undermines the particularity of Adam's creation. Moreover, when coupled with the substitution of "them" for "him" as the verse continues, the progression of the verse is obfuscated. The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam-the one man who is father of all creation, created in God's image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)-to the male and female, which is paralleled to him. The original text then preserves both the particularity and universality which NIV 2011 undermines.
Und Gott sprach: Laßt uns Menschen machen, ein Bild, das uns gleich sei, die da herrschen über die Fische im Meer und über die Vögel unter dem Himmel und über das Vieh und über die ganze Erde und über alles Gewürm, das auf Erden kriecht.
Und Gott schuf den Menschen ihm zum Bilde, zum Bilde Gottes schuf er ihn; und schuf sie einen Mann und ein Weib. Genesis 1:26-27 Luther's Bibel

My German is very rusty but isn't Luther's translation similar to the NIV's translation in this first example they provide?

Rob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ryan.Samples

New Member
I am sad to learn this is the case with NIV2011. I was especially excited to see they corrected some painfully lingering translation errors such as Mark 15:27; they used "rebels" in place of the older, woefully inaccurate "robbers."

With that said, it seems their corrections are accompanied by the introductions of new errors or shortcomings. I don't see the point of spending money on a new version that is going to muddy more waters than it is going to clear.

Thanks for posting the article as well. It proved an enlightening read.
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As I understand it...

Menschen = humans, people
Mann = man

Maybe I'm mixing up some Yiddish

Rob
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sounds as if the Lutherans have created s'more horse feathers. Scripture goes on to say that Adam and Eve had children after their own kind, same as the animals did. And since Adam was created in God's image, so were his children. The Lutherans are nit-picking without considering whether or not the "nits" should be there or not.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
since Adam was created in God's image, so were his children

Sigh. That's what they said.

They said that the non-altered NIV text already makes that abundantly clear.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just a note on Mark 15:27 and the translation of robber. Clearly the word refers to outlaws, criminals whether thieves, robbers or rebels. The same or a very similar word appears at John 10:1, 8, and John 18:40. When two or more meanings may be intended, the best translation would cover both possibilities, i.e. outlaws or criminals. The NET uses outlaws, HCSB uses criminals.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
when will Rippon post in to comment?

Just had a foot of my colon removed and am recovering from that.
The LC-MS admitted in its little report that they were not dealing with the entirety of the NIV as a translation.

Rod Decker a conservative Baptist scholar in review of the 2011 NIV said : "Overall,however,it is an improvement of an otherwise fine teranslation."

Dan Wallace in the 2nd of a 4 part review said; "All in all,this is a fine translation...the beauty and majesty of the scritures comes through loud and clear in this superb version."

[More]"...overall the translation is extremely well done."

[Also] "The scholarship behind the NIV 2011 is probably as gooed as it gets. And the textual basis is both bold and exceptionally accurate."

Craig Blomberg related : "I am convinced that the updated NIV achieves the best combination of accuracy and clarity of meaning most frequently...the updated NIV seems to serve best the broadest crioss-section of purposes and audiences."
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just had a foot of my colon removed and am recovering from that.
The LC-MS admitted in its little report that they were not dealing with the entirety of the NIV as a translation.

Rod Decker a conservative Baptist scholar in review of the 2011 NIV said : "Overall,however,it is an improvement of an otherwise fine teranslation."

Dan Wallace in the 2nd of a 4 part review said; "All in all,this is a fine translation...the beauty and majesty of the scritures comes through loud and clear in this superb version."

[More]"...overall the translation is extremely well done."

[Also] "The scholarship behind the NIV 2011 is probably as gooed as it gets. And the textual basis is both bold and exceptionally accurate."

Craig Blomberg related : "I am convinced that the updated NIV achieves the best combination of accuracy and clarity of meaning most frequently...the updated NIV seems to serve best the broadest crioss-section of purposes and audiences."

Sorry to hear about your experience, are you suffering from Chrones disease?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The NIV 2011 is a very readable translation and so for today's school graduates, it is a blessing. We with gray beards understand words from a time long past, and we resist the language of today. So while I study from my trusty NASB, I still compare with the NIV, NKJV, and ESV. And more and more I seek out the NET and HCSB.

In summary, I think the NIV 2011 would be fine for a pew bible, especially if the church is reaching today's generation and not those that memorized the KJV verses in Sunday School more than 50 years ago.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The NIV 2011 is a very readable translation and so for today's school graduates, it is a blessing. We with gray beards understand words from a time long past, and we resist the language of today. So while I study from my trusty NASB, I still compare with the NIV, NKJV, and ESV. And more and more I seek out the NET and HCSB.

In summary, I think the NIV 2011 would be fine for a pew bible, especially if the church is reaching today's generation and not those that memorized the KJV verses in Sunday School more than 50 years ago.

Would see it as being a very good secondary Bible to use along with the primary one of a more literal version such as either Nasb/Nkjv...
 

Oldtimer

New Member
The NIV 2011 is a very readable translation and so for today's school graduates, it is a blessing. We with gray beards understand words from a time long past, and we resist the language of today. So while I study from my trusty NASB, I still compare with the NIV, NKJV, and ESV. And more and more I seek out the NET and HCSB.

In summary, I think the NIV 2011 would be fine for a pew bible, especially if the church is reaching today's generation and not those that memorized the KJV verses in Sunday School more than 50 years ago.

Ever ask why the need for that "blessing" exists? Avoiding, for a moment, that the Bible and prayer have been removed from schools, why aren't the schools teaching "graduates" to read English? Are language classes now milk instead of meat? Teaching just enough for students to pass mandated end of year achievement tests?

This old grey head remembers language classes that included studies of Shakespeare, Chaucer, use of dictionaries, lofty words of poetry, context to derive meaning, and more. That includes second person pronouns, as understanding them was needed for than just reading the Bible. From a source that supports modern versions:

Eventually, English will develop a second-person plural pronoun, but until we reach a consensus, the great pronoun famine continues. http://www.kencollins.com/explanations/why-05.htm

On a parallel note, this old grey head also remembers civics classes while in school. We were taught the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We were taught the differences between various forms of government and the premise of checks and balances built into the framework of the US founding.

You may ask, why bring this into this conversation? Civics, from what I understand, is no longer being taught in schools. Graduates no longer have the same level education needed evaluate what they hear from politicians, as it relates to the Constitution.

How many can read, with understanding, the Constitution, as originally written? Has teaching of English been so simplified, that the average graduate can't grasp the content without having a "modern" version translated for them? (Yes, I know the counter arguements with what's probably a poor choice of words, here.)

The Bible, prayer, and civics (for example) have been removed from schools. Apparently, teaching the English language, is suffering from a lack of depth of instruction in usage and understanding, as well.

FWIW, I have several different translations of the Bible, plus use on-line resources to access others. However, the version that I reach for first is the KJB. Yes, I memorized KJB verses 50 plus years ago. Yes, I tried a NIV version for roughly 6 months as my primary Bible for everyday usage.

No, a NIV 2011, isn't a blessing IMO. I'm not saying that any Bible version can't be used to bring the lost to Christ. The words of God, from any source, even those on a business card can be used to touch the heart of an unbeliever. However, I am saying that more and more new translations/versions, simplified for ease of reading isn't addressing the core problems of today.

Why do us grey beards understand the words of the past and today's graduates don't? How much responsibility does the church bear in this regard? The church allowed, yes, allowed the Bible and prayer to be removed from the schools. The church allowed standards for language education to be changed/lowered in both schools and churches.

The same "graduates" who can't read a KJB also can't read great literature from the past. There's so much more in our daily lives that they can't read, with understanding, either. Can they read the by-laws of their church or the company manual where they work with adequate comprehension? Or, gasp the implications when they cast a vote for a referendum on a ballot?

Are new, easier to read Bibles, put into the back of church pews the real solution? Or is it a stop-gap measure that's a "token" gesture to those who can't because they haven't been taught or won't....

2 Timothy 2: (KJB)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Following is a snip from : Translation Evaluation Committee Supplemental Report For The 2011 WELS Convention.(a Lutheran organization)

: "We believe that no other current translation would be a significant improvement over the NIV...When we apply the evaluative criteria we have set forth above,we believe the NIV emerges as the best option."
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Has teaching of English been so simplified, that the average graduate can't grasp the content without having a "modern" version translated for them?

How silly of you OT. If you think the language of the NIV is so simplified you have not read it very closely. The NLTse is easier to read. The NCV NIrVand other more dynamic and freer versions would be in the simple category.

The Bible, prayer, and civics (for example) have been removed from schools.

Completely irrelevant.


No, a NIV 2011, isn't a blessing IMO.

That opinion of yours is silly to the 10th factor.
 

Oldtimer

New Member
Yes, perhaps I am a silly old fool to even higher degree than the 10th factor. There's no point in debating that as you may well be right.

However, this old fool knows that you didn't address the declining quality of education in many (most?) of our schools and some churches.

This silly old fogie noticed that you jumped to conclusions without having any facts to back up your claim. Tell us just how you know how much time I did or didn't spend in study with the NIV? Just how much time I spent in stand-alone NIV study. Just how much time as been spent with verse comparisions between the NIV, the KJB, and a list of other MV's, too.

If our education system were still up to par, in terms of teaching the English language, today, why can an old silly goat like me read the KJB with some degree of understanding? While other more recent "graduates" from school require easier and easier versions of the Bible?
 

JTornado1

Member
The LCMS uses the ESV in its hymnal, public Scripture readings, and pew Bibles. They used to use the NIV 1984, which is easier to read than the ESV. I don't care much for the NIV 2011. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
However, this old fool knows that you didn't address the declining quality of education in many (most?) of our schools and some churches.

Again,completely irrelevant.


If our education system were still up to par, in terms of teaching the English language, today,...

You are going the way of the irrelevant once more.


While other more recent "graduates" from school require easier and easier versions of the Bible?

It is no crime to have Bible translations put in the vernacular. Tyndale,Luther even Purvey endorsed that common sense idea.
 
Top