using different bible translations

[David Showalter]

Any comments or observations about the new/updated NIV translation? Also, if you could influence folks to use a certain translation, what would you steer them toward in this day and age. Lastly, is it more helpful, or beneficial for the majority of a gathered group to be using the same translation, or just as well for everyone to have whatever they are used to as scripture is read, discussed, and explored?

[Julie Reed]

I have not heard or read anything about the updated version of the NIV but I am curious as to what the differences are also. I've switched to using the English Standard Version from the NIV a year ago.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My preference for an English translation is the NRSV. Not a big fan of the NIV, but do use it occasionally.

[Benjamin Burch]

Any comments or observations about the new/updated NIV translation?

Really haven't looked at it yet.



Also, if you could influence folks to use a certain translation, what would you steer them toward in this day and age.

NRSV, without any doubt.



Lastly, is it more helpful, or beneficial for the majority of a gathered group to be using the same translation, or just as well for everyone to have whatever they are used to as scripture is read, discussed, and explored?

Depends on what the group is doing. Worship? wouldn't hurt if they were reading different translations in the pew. Bible study? It would be best to be the same.

[Ryan Scott]

I really think the new NIV is fantastic. I'd been preaching from the TNIV for a while, but the improvements for the new edition solidify its place as the best mix between accuracy and readability.

I'll pull out the NRSV for study, but the one I carry around will be the new NIV (when I get around to getting a hard copy).

I went on an ESV kick in seminary for a little while, especially with some of the translation issues in the NIV - however, the ESV really has more of them, just in less obvious places. It's terrible for the Old Testament and has a pretty strong Reformed bent in the New Testament.

[Jon Bemis]

Usually when someone asks what version of the Bible they should get I tell them to buy the one they are most likely to actually read. I do like the new NIV and would recommend it unless someone is interested in serious study, then I would recommend the NRSV.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

The NIV is the most commonly used English translation of the Bible today, so that's what I use. I use it every Sunday when I preach, making it the "standard" in our church. I especially avoid quoting from other translations when I preach because I don't want people to get the idea that it's okay to shop various translations to find one that says it the way they like the best. If comparing translations is helpful, I start with the NIV and then give another - but always in a positive way. I don't pit one translation against another - ultimately, that waters down all translations.

And, just to prove I actually read David's question - I can't comment on the updated NIV as I haven't used it.

[Jonathan Sparks]

I know that many would not call it a translation, but I find that The Message communicates well to outsiders. We can get tangled up in detailed analysis, but I simply ask - Who are we trying to reach with the Gospel?

What I like to do is compare several versions. This is easy to do with YouVersion.com and Biblegateway.com and blueletterbible.org.

[Benjamin Burch]

I really think the new NIV is fantastic. I'd been preaching from the TNIV for a while, but the improvements for the new edition solidify its place as the best mix between accuracy and readability.

I'll pull out the NRSV for study, but the one I carry around will be the new NIV (when I get around to getting a hard copy).

I went on an ESV kick in seminary for a little while, especially with some of the translation issues in the NIV - however, the ESV really has more of them, just in less obvious places. It's terrible for the Old Testament and has a pretty strong Reformed bent in the New Testament.

^ This.

It really feels to me like the ESV was an attempt to correct the "liberal" bent of the NRSV, and would be a "conservative" edition of the RSV. Thus, the ESV Study Bible is endorsed by a massive conservative Evangelical group of people, John Piper being the spokesperson, and the positions by the "introductory" pieces to each work reflect a general disdain for higher critical work.

The New Testament translations are often very Reformed.

ETA: The Translation Oversight Committee, which was responsible for the final review and approval of the ESV, includes J. I. Packer (the general editor of the entire project), Robert and William Mounce, Vern Poythress, R. Kent Hughes, Wayne Grudem, and Paul House.

[Rich Schmidt]

Any comments or observations about the new/updated NIV translation? Also, if you could influence folks to use a certain translation, what would you steer them toward in this day and age. Lastly, is it more helpful, or beneficial for the majority of a gathered group to be using the same translation, or just as well for everyone to have whatever they are used to as scripture is read, discussed, and explored?

I looked at the new NIV back when it was announced & made available online. It looks good to me. I'd recommend it.

Our church has been using the NLT for quite a while. That's what we have on the tables, what we give away, and it's what we're reading/preaching through this year (the Daily Walk Bible). It has its weaknesses, but it's very readable and understandable.

There are benefits to having everyone using the same translation. But there are benefits to having different translations involved, too. Especially when there is opportunity for people to chime in with, "the translation I'm using says ____."

[Craig Laughlin]

Any comments or observations about the new/updated NIV translation?

I use the new NIV a lot in preaching because it is a reasonably good translation with high readability.


Also, if you could influence folks to use a certain translation, what would you steer them toward in this day and age.

The really great thing about being a parish pastor is that we get to customize our answers to the group or individual. If I know the person I would respond based on stage of theological development. - New believers or Investigators I would probably direct toward the New NIV. I might direct toward the new living if I thought that readability was the main issue. (Some folks care not at all about the details of theology) If I am dealing with someone on the other end of the scale that is asking nuanced questions about theology then it would be the NRSV.

If I don't' know them very well I would ask them to tell me about their spiritual journey before I gave an answer.


Lastly, is it more helpful, or beneficial for the majority of a gathered group to be using the same translation, or just as well for everyone to have whatever they are used to as scripture is read, discussed, and explored?

Unless the passage is a very long narrative I always project the words to the text up on the screen. I almost always use the New NIV for the reasons mentioned above. However, in my preaching I very often will give more detailed explanations about the meaning or nuance of particular words or phrases. I sometime critique the translations or often ask when dealing with a particular word if folks have a different translation than what I put up. (I know ahead of time that there will be several different translations) I do this intentionally because I want my folks to understand that no translation represents the full spectrum of meaning that is contained in the manuscripts we have available to us. It is also a subtle way of communicating where we stand on literal interpretation.

[Steven Martinez]

As usual I am on an island. I prefer the NASB for preaching and personal study. I enjoy it because it is not as easily readable as other translations. I find that it forces me to slow down and actual pay more attention to the words and sentence structure. As far as preaching, I find it to be a good middle ground with a culture who is very fond of the KJV. At the same time, many of those who are Hispanic origin find it easier to translate or familiarize with the more formal translations. For example sanctification is the exact same word in English as it is in Spanish and requires very little translation, where as using the word holiness is not as familiar. Since the NASB is weak in literary English, it avoids euphemisms, and expressions that are difficult for English as a second language folk.

[Paul DeBaufer]

As usual I am on an island. I prefer the NASB for preaching and personal study. I enjoy it because it is not as easily readable as other translations. I find that it forces me to slow down and actual pay more attention to the words and sentence structure. As far as preaching, I find it to be a good middle ground with a culture who is very fond of the KJV. At the same time, many of those who are Hispanic origin find it easier to translate or familiarize with the more formal translations. For example sanctification is the exact same word in English as it is in Spanish and requires very little translation, where as using the word holiness is not as familiar. Since the NASB is weak in literary English, it avoids euphemisms, and expressions that are difficult for English as a second language folk.


NASB is my back-up when I'm out and about because it is on my phone.

[David Showalter]

Thanks to all for your input. Because the majority of my folks use the NIV that's what I've used in the pulpit for many years now. In my study I use 5 different translations on a regular basis, HOWEVER, not one of them is the NRSV, could there be something wrong with me?! I recently received an email from a Lutheran relative, it shares how some of their denominational leadership, as well as their publishing house, was extremely concerned about the new NIV due to who now owns the publishing institution that produced it. Basically wanted to know if it was much todo about not much.

Am curious about some of your preference with the NRSV, as that was the translation the Lutheran's were strongly promoting. (and one I've never really used) Please give me a short overview of the reason for your NRSV leaning, and maybe a scriptural example of it's value. thanks, I sure enjoy lurking about this neat web site, and am thankful to Dave, and all of you that keep it up, running, and moving forward. Blessings, David

[Larry Parsons]

Doesn't anyone use the King James version?
Thanks
Larry

[Julie Reed]

I read my devotions off of my kindle and downloaded the English Standard Version because it was free. I really wasn't thinking at the time if it was bent towards liberal or conservative. I was just happy that I got it free :) I've very much enjoyed having it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thanks to all for your input. Because the majority of my folks use the NIV that's what I've used in the pulpit for many years now. In my study I use 5 different translations on a regular basis, HOWEVER, not one of them is the NRSV, could there be something wrong with me?! I recently received an email from a Lutheran relative, it shares how some of their denominational leadership, as well as their publishing house, was extremely concerned about the new NIV due to who now owns the publishing institution that produced it. Basically wanted to know if it was much todo about not much.

Am curious about some of your preference with the NRSV, as that was the translation the Lutheran's were strongly promoting. (and one I've never really used) Please give me a short overview of the reason for your NRSV leaning, and maybe a scriptural example of it's value. thanks, I sure enjoy lurking about this neat web site, and am thankful to Dave, and all of you that keep it up, running, and moving forward. Blessings, David

Lutheran is a mainline church so it comes as no surprise to me that that is the Bible they promote.

When I took Biblical interpretation the New Oxford Annotated Bible was on the list of required texts (although the instructor really didn't care if we had it or not). I think our book on exegesis said that the NRSV was the most ecumenical of the two top English translation (NRSV and NASB) while the NASB had a slight evangelical slant. As I read the New Oxford, which contains the NRSV I really liked how it was written. I do not read Greek or Hebrew, but read and have been told that the NRSV is very close to the original languages (heard that about the NASB, too). I have come to prefer the NRSV over the other translations. But I do have many and will read passages from different ones. Then I find that many scholars are using the NRSV.

[David Showalter]

Doesn't anyone use the King James version?
Thanks
Larry

Larry, read it quite often in study and use it when with the elderly and for funerals of my older folks. Seldom do I use it from the pulpit on Sunday.

[Eric Frey]

Just to chime in, my overall preference is then NRSV. I think it is a good balance between the word-for-form translation method of NASB and the idea-for-idea methodology used by most paraprases (and the NLT from which I usually preach). As such it is more readable than the NASB and it is more accurately translated than the paraphrases and the NIV (which I think has imposed a great deal of evangelical theology on what the text actually says...eg. sarx = "flesh," (NASB/NRSV) not "original sin" (NIV)). My preference for study is NASB for many of the reasons Steve mentioned. I am also studying at a Seminary that is reformed and conservative and uses the ESV, which I really dislike for the reasons Ben and others discussed, and which rejects the NRSV for it "liberal" translation. NASB allows me to use a solid translation without using ESV. As to the KJV family. It is very poetic and might be good in its place, but I never consult it.

[Charles W Christian]

I've used the TNIV for several years. I really like it A LOT....

CWC

[David Showalter]

Just to chime in, my overall preference is then NRSV. I think it is a good balance between the word-for-form translation method of NASB and the idea-for-idea methodology used by most paraprases (and the NLT from which I usually preach). As such it is more readable than the NASB and it is more accurately translated than the paraphrases and the NIV (which I think has imposed a great deal of evangelical theology on what the text actually says...eg. sarx = "flesh," (NASB/NRSV) not "original sin" (NIV)). My preference for study is NASB for many of the reasons Steve mentioned. I am also studying at a Seminary that is reformed and conservative and uses the ESV, which I really dislike for the reasons Ben and others discussed, and which rejects the NRSV for it "liberal" translation. NASB allows me to use a solid translation without using ESV. As to the KJV family. It is very poetic and might be good in its place, but I never consult it.

Eric, thanks for your post, very helpful, good example, appreciate your input.

[David Showalter]

Charles, have you viewed the latest, updated version of the NIV?

[Charles W Christian]

I guess I have not.... I'll take a look! If they followed some of the changes of the TNIV, I think I will like it. Beyond the gender inclusive language, there is also some added clarity in several key passages....

CWC

[Dennis Bratcher]

Any comments or observations about the new/updated NIV translation? Also, if you could influence folks to use a certain translation, what would you steer them toward in this day and age. Lastly, is it more helpful, or beneficial for the majority of a gathered group to be using the same translation, or just as well for everyone to have whatever they are used to as scripture is read, discussed, and explored?

I haven't read the updated version, so this won’t answer that question. However, I gave up on the NIV many years ago. It is heavily biased toward Reformed evangelical theology and tends to use traditional systematic theological categories as a framework for translation (which makes it more a commentary than a translation). As daily reading it is passable, but in my opinion it is not good for preaching or study. I hope the updated version addresses those issues.

One recent example, among many hundreds I have seen across the years.

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5367-quot-Idols-of-the-Heart-quot-by-Gary-Amirault&p=88907#post88907

I have used the NRSV in classes and preaching. For accuracy with ease of reading the New Jerusalem Bible is good.

In Bible studies I have found that a variety of translations are helpful because they allow people to see differences and ask questions, both about the nature of translations as well as meaning. They also provide opportunities to deal with cultural, historical, and theological issues that affect translation, and therefore understanding (for example why NIV has “Spirit of God” capitalized in Gen 1:2 while NRSV has “wind from God”).

Preachers will never be able to mandate translations in worship so that question is moot. The preacher will have to use what s/he thinks is best, although popularity is not a good criterion.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I haven't read the updated version, so this won’t answer that question. However, I gave up on the NIV many years ago. It is heavily biased toward Reformed evangelical theology and tends to use traditional systematic theological categories as a framework for translation (which makes it more a commentary than a translation). As daily reading it is passable, but in my opinion it is not good for preaching or study. I hope the updated version addresses those issues.

One recent example, among many hundreds I have seen across the years.

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5367-quot-Idols-of-the-Heart-quot-by-Gary-Amirault&p=88907#post88907

I have used the NRSV in classes and preaching. For accuracy with ease of reading the New Jerusalem Bible is good.

In Bible studies I have found that a variety of translations are helpful because they allow people to see differences and ask questions, both about the nature of translations as well as meaning. They also provide opportunities to deal with cultural, historical, and theological issues that affect translation, and therefore understanding (for example why NIV has “Spirit of God” capitalized in Gen 1:2 while NRSV has “wind from God”).

Preachers will never be able to mandate translations in worship so that question is moot. The preacher will have to use what s/he thinks is best, although popularity is not a good criterion.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

For the very reasons you cite is why I became dissatisfied with the NIV. Some people think I'm crazy for seeing that in it.

[Steven Burton]

I haven't read the updated version, so this won’t answer that question. However, I gave up on the NIV many years ago. It is heavily biased toward Reformed evangelical theology and tends to use traditional systematic theological categories as a framework for translation (which makes it more a commentary than a translation). As daily reading it is passable, but in my opinion it is not good for preaching or study. I hope the updated version addresses those issues.

One recent example, among many hundreds I have seen across the years.

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5367-quot-Idols-of-the-Heart-quot-by-Gary-Amirault&p=88907#post88907

I have used the NRSV in classes and preaching. For accuracy with ease of reading the New Jerusalem Bible is good.

In Bible studies I have found that a variety of translations are helpful because they allow people to see differences and ask questions, both about the nature of translations as well as meaning. They also provide opportunities to deal with cultural, historical, and theological issues that affect translation, and therefore understanding (for example why NIV has “Spirit of God” capitalized in Gen 1:2 while NRSV has “wind from God”).

Preachers will never be able to mandate translations in worship so that question is moot. The preacher will have to use what s/he thinks is best, although popularity is not a good criterion.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

If it helps thy author of the Five Points of Calvinism book ,I picked up for cheap to read, was the executive secretary of the of the NIV as well as the general editor of the study bible. Which has made me a little leery of the NIV now.

[David Showalter]

I haven't read the updated version, so this won’t answer that question. However, I gave up on the NIV many years ago. It is heavily biased toward Reformed evangelical theology and tends to use traditional systematic theological categories as a framework for translation (which makes it more a commentary than a translation). As daily reading it is passable, but in my opinion it is not good for preaching or study. I hope the updated version addresses those issues.

One recent example, among many hundreds I have seen across the years.

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5367-quot-Idols-of-the-Heart-quot-by-Gary-Amirault&p=88907#post88907

I have used the NRSV in classes and preaching. For accuracy with ease of reading the New Jerusalem Bible is good.

In Bible studies I have found that a variety of translations are helpful because they allow people to see differences and ask questions, both about the nature of translations as well as meaning. They also provide opportunities to deal with cultural, historical, and theological issues that affect translation, and therefore understanding (for example why NIV has “Spirit of God” capitalized in Gen 1:2 while NRSV has “wind from God”).

Preachers will never be able to mandate translations in worship so that question is moot. The preacher will have to use what s/he thinks is best, although popularity is not a good criterion.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis,thanks for the post, I went back and read the post you referred to, very helpful. Know you're busy, but could you expound on the Gen. 1:2 difference and give your input-position and view of the proper translation and interpretation? thanks

[Hans Deventer]

(for example why NIV has “Spirit of God” capitalized in Gen 1:2 while NRSV has “wind from God”).

Sometimes I really wonder if we should not stop translating some words/phrases. Why not, in this case, keep "ruach" untranslated and simply explain in the margin that the word means both "wind" and "spirit"?

The Orthodox Jewish Bible is probably overdoing it, adding some Yiddish as well, but something like this doesn't sound so bad to me:


Gen: 1:1 In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth). 2 And the earth was tohu vavohu (without form, and void); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Ruach Elohim was hovering upon the face of the waters.

[Dale Cozby]

Sometimes I really wonder if we should not stop translating some words/phrases. Why not, in this case, keep "ruach" untranslated and simply explain in the margin that the word means both "wind" and "spirit"?

The Orthodox Jewish Bible is probably overdoing it, adding some Yiddish as well, but something like this doesn't sound so bad to me:


Gen: 1:1 In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth). 2 And the earth was tohu vavohu (without form, and void); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Ruach Elohim was hovering upon the face of the waters.

I have done stuff like this on Power points when teaching or preaching in order to help get a fuller meaning from the text. I also like to point out how many different ways a single greek or hebrew word gets translated in various translations.

[Roy Richardson]

Really haven't looked at it yet.



NRSV, without any doubt.



Depends on what the group is doing. Worship? wouldn't hurt if they were reading different translations in the pew. Bible study? It would be best to be the same.

For study I use the NRSV and the NASB, though I am growing more fond of the HCSB.

For public reading I prefer the NRSV because it is more gender-accurate than many others.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Sometimes I really wonder if we should not stop translating some words/phrases. Why not, in this case, keep "ruach" untranslated and simply explain in the margin that the word means both "wind" and "spirit"?

I have been tempted to do that! But then, it would not really be a translation (we could talk here about various theories of translation). A complication is that the Hebrew word ruach never means "Spirit" as NIV says and as many people think when they see the word “spirit.” That is a theological interpretation that goes far beyond what the Hebrew word can mean.

Even when ruach means "spirit" (which is rarely, without also evoking the other ranges of meaning), that has to be further explained as "presence," "disposition," "emotion," etc. (for example, "spirit of jealousy" in Number 5:30).

There are several Hebrew words that have no adequate single-word translation into English, and many that have ranges of meaning that are specified only by context. Often, the ranges of meaning intersect or are used deliberately by a writer (as the writer of Ezekiel does with ruach in Ezek 37). Both groups require some acquaintance with a wider cultural context to really comprehend. This is true with any language, but especially for those so far removed in time and place. To attempt always to reduce them to single words (as translations often must) is to lose the richness and texture, and sometime subtlety, of what they communicate. Too often, that leveling out lends itself to bad interpretation and resulting inadequate theology.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

. . .could you expound on the Gen. 1:2 difference and give your input-position and view of the proper translation and interpretation? thanks

The Hebrew word here, ruach, is one of those words that has a wide range of meaning and often the meanings overlap in usage, which brings a depth that is often lost in translation.

As noted, the Hebrew word cannot mean “Spirit” as in the NIV, precisely because that is largely a Christian meaning that evokes Trinitarian overtones.

The idea of the ruach of God throughout the OT communicates the active presence of God, with an emphasis on activity. The root Hebrew word basically means “wind” in its movement, and thereby “breath” as the animating aspect of life given by God. In derived meanings it can imply things like emotion (characterized by heavy breathing), or temperament. Sometimes ruach just means "wind" almost always with an emphasis on movement or activity, often metaphorically in terms of destructive force.

The “wind of God” or “breath of God” is the active, creative presence of God in the world, usually related to some specific activity. It is in this sense that Ezekiel plays with all three ranges of meaning of the word to talk about God restoring the nation after the exile (Ezekiel 37). It is also from this context that Jesus uses “wind” (using a Greek word with equally versatile ranges of meaning) to talk about the activity of the “spirit” (John 3:8). Throughout Scripture, wind and clouds (and often associated lightning and thunder) were a metaphorical way to talk about the presence and activity of God, along with fire and smoke. Note that even in Acts 2, the presence of God in creative power is associated with wind/spirit/breath, as well as fire.

So, in most places in the OT “wind” or “breath” of God is a better rendering of ruach than “spirit.” And “Spirit” is never appropriate. Yet we need to keep in mind that often the word ruach, even when more narrowly meaning “wind,” often subtly invokes the creative activity of God (for example, Gen 8:1, Ex 10:13, 15:10, 2 Sam 22:11, Jer 18:17, etc.

In Genesis 1 is is not even subtle. It is the wind/breath of God that dispels the chaos and darkness, and brings order and life into the world. That is the biblical understanding of God as Creator. It is in that same sense that the waters of chaos are again dispelled after the flood by a wind from God (Gen 8:1).

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Rick Hall]

Did Jesus use "wind" specifically to prepare Jewish believers in His presence and later ones for the understanding of the role of the Spirit that would be different than in the OT?

[Dennis Bratcher]

Did Jesus use "wind" specifically to prepare Jewish believers in His presence and later ones for the understanding of the role of the Spirit that would be different than in the OT?

There is no way to answer that since we do not have access to Jesus' intentions.

The simplest way to understand this apart from projecting our own theology onto John is that Jesus (and the writer of John) was familiar with the symbolism from the OT and Israelite/Jewish history, and drew on that symbolism to describe the activity of God.

Maybe we need to work this the other way. That is, perhaps we need first to understand the Holy Spirit against the long-standing set of metaphors used to describe the work of God in the world, rather than begin with ontology against the background of later Greek concepts.

Just to note: the Spirit in the NT is not different than in the OT since there is no Spirit in the OT. That is, the OT is not Trinitarian. The OT portrays the dynamic activity of God in terms of the metaphor of wind/breath. The “wind of God” is a way to say “God is doing something” or “something is happening and God is involved.”

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Mike Schutz]

Just to note: the Spirit in the NT is not different than in the OT since there is no Spirit in the OT. That is, the OT is not Trinitarian. The OT portrays the dynamic activity of God in terms of the metaphor of wind/breath. The “wind of God” is a way to say “God is doing something” or “something is happening and God is involved.”

Thanks for throwing this in, Dennis. Without it I'm sure some folks might misconstrue some of your earlier comments.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

New Bible for Public Release, Changes Jesus 'Son of Man' to ‘the Human One’ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-bible-to-go-on-public-release-changes-jesus-son-of-man-to-the-human-one-52232/)

This is a new version that's trying to "make a bridge between conservatives, moderates and liberals.”
-----
Some other changes in the Common English Bible include swapping out “alien” or “foreigner,” used by some translations for passages like Leviticus 19:33-34; the Common English Bible applies the term “immigrant” instead.

-----
In May, Fuller Theological Seminary voted to add the Common English Bible to the NRSV and the TNIV as translations that could be required for students doing biblical studies.

[Charles W Christian]

New Bible for Public Release, Changes Jesus 'Son of Man' to ‘the Human One’ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-bible-to-go-on-public-release-changes-jesus-son-of-man-to-the-human-one-52232/)

This is a new version that's trying to "make a bridge between conservatives, moderates and liberals.”
-----
Some other changes in the Common English Bible include swapping out “alien” or “foreigner,” used by some translations for passages like Leviticus 19:33-34; the Common English Bible applies the term “immigrant” instead.

-----
In May, Fuller Theological Seminary voted to add the Common English Bible to the NRSV and the TNIV as translations that could be required for students doing biblical studies.

Interesting. I am not familiar with this translation (CEB).

CWC

[Dennis Bratcher]

Thanks for throwing this in, Dennis. Without it I'm sure some folks might misconstrue some of your earlier comments.

Well, it certainly would not be the first time!

I have found that people often hear what they expect to hear, or want to hear. Wish I could claim never to have done that!

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

Interesting. I am not familiar with this translation (CEB).

CWC

I just wonder how accurate it is to call the Son of Man "The Human One"? I know Christ was all human but He was also all God. So calling Him the Human One seems to be saying He was.... all human.

[Hans Deventer]

I just wonder how accurate it is to call the Son of Man "The Human One"? I know Christ was all human but He was also all God. So calling Him the Human One seems to be saying He was.... all human.

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

[Paul DeBaufer]

I just wonder how accurate it is to call the Son of Man "The Human One"? I know Christ was all human but He was also all God. So calling Him the Human One seems to be saying He was.... all human.

Not to be flippant, but "Son of Man" is different, how?


Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?


Num 23:19 God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. as he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?

The OT is replete with examples such as this one from Numbers. Seems that the OT authors saw "son of man" as a term for human, mortal. So, maybe the CEB's use of "The Human One" might not be so far off.

[Bob Carabbio]

Well - since the Best Bible translation - is the one that actually gets READ by the person, then there's the Personal preference issue. My wife is reading the "Message" through at present. She really LIKE it, and profits from reading it.

I've been reading the KJV for about 64 years, so ain't changing any time soon - I know all the "Work arounds" for the lousy translations and antiquated vocabulary, and being familiar with the way the text reads makes using a concordance really easy to find stuff.

Most churches don't bother with the Bible all that much in meetings, maybe a verse or two, and the 'ol "Follow along so you know I'm not lying to you" is just silly. Unless everybody's using the same text, it's a problem to do that without confusion. SO - which one you ceremoniously bring to church is really rather unimportant.

I bring my cell phone, and queue up whichever "version" they're using (if I bother to "follow along" at all), and use "www.blueletterbible.com" to find stuff if I need to.

[Rich Schmidt]

Most churches don't bother with the Bible all that much in meetings, maybe a verse or two, ...

If true, then that's just sad.

I just looked back over the past few Sundays, and the message notes in the bulletin have included 20-40 verses each week. And sometimes I bring in passages that aren't in the printed notes.

I think maybe only once or twice in 12 years have I preached from just 1 or 2 verses. And it felt very awkward.

[Paul DeBaufer]

If true, then that's just sad.

I just looked back over the past few Sundays, and the message notes in the bulletin have included 20-40 verses each week. And sometimes I bring in passages that aren't in the printed notes.

I think maybe only once or twice in 12 years have I preached from just 1 or 2 verses. And it felt very awkward.

I always felt, in my very limited preaching experience, that one needs whole passages, one or two verses kinda leaves out the context. So, I'm with ya here.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

Thought this was a good link on the Son Of Man. I can't say I understand it all, but it helped to see how the phrase is used throughout the Bible:

Son Of Man (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8284)

[Benjamin Burch]

I just wonder how accurate it is to call the Son of Man "The Human One"? I know Christ was all human but He was also all God. So calling Him the Human One seems to be saying He was.... all human.

In general, Jesus' divinity is elusive at best in the New Testament. So that shouldn't seem to be a problem. Remember, the Bible isn't interested in our theologies, and our translations shouldn't be either. So, on those grounds, I have no problem with it, whatsoever.

However, the Gospels drew pretty heavily on the imagery of Daniel 7:14, and whatever theologies regarding that verse and messianism were around at the time (and even came up with their own), and in that sense "the human one" or "the Son of Man" are both proper interpretations of the language in Daniel. However, in the New Testament it does seem to be used as a title, and "Son of Man" seems a better interpretation, imho.

Adela Yarbrough Collins has some good work on the subject of Daniel 7:14 and the NT in the Hermenia Bible Commentary series.

[Rich Schmidt]

In general, Jesus' divinity is elusive at best in the New Testament. So that shouldn't seem to be a problem. Remember, the Bible isn't interested in our theologies, and our translations shouldn't be either. So, on those grounds, I have no problem with it, whatsoever.

However, the Gospels drew pretty heavily on the imagery of Daniel 7:14, and whatever theologies regarding that verse and messianism were around at the time (and even came up with their own), and in that sense "the human one" or "the Son of Man" are both proper interpretations of the language in Daniel. However, in the New Testament it does seem to be used as a title, and "Son of Man" seems a better interpretation, imho.

Adela Yarbrough Collins has some good work on the subject of Daniel 7:14 and the NT in the Hermenia Bible Commentary series.

So long as they use the same phrase "The Human One" to translate the phrase in Daniel & the other places where it appears, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Frankly, I've always preferred C.S. Lewis' expression "Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve" from the Chronicles of Narnia. I think that's getting at the same idea, but in a way that captures my imagination.

[Randy Wise]

I just wonder how accurate it is to call the Son of Man "The Human One"? I know Christ was all human but He was also all God. So calling Him the Human One seems to be saying He was.... all human.

About the Christ just a man (not your position) I would highlight as below

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-21947a)] coming with the clouds of heaven



The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24119e)

[Melissa DeBono]

In worship we read from the NRSV almost exclusively, however the version in the pews is NIV. From time to time I use the New International Reader's Version in worship, particularly when crafting responsive readings. This is most commonly known for the cartoon characters in the margins. (It's the children's Bible.) It has all the problems of the NIV, and fuzzes up the translations even more by simplifying the language for readability, but I would rather that people felt that they had real access to the meaning of the words than perfect accuracy. For people to be alienated from the text does no one any good.

Very few people bring their own Bible to church, and we don't even make an attempt at "turn in your Bible to..." I have never cared for that practice, as I prefer to give my whole attention to the Word as it is read. But we read at least three sizable scripture portions each week. If translation deeply impacts the meaning, this will usually be addressed in the sermon.

For personal study, I think people should use the version that they are comfortable with. I am most concerned that individuals understand the nature of interpretation and not latch too literally to any particular translation, but treat the text gently, knowing that there is more in and through the text than can be captured by torturing the words into submission.

[Mike Schutz]

When I arrived at our church, the KJV was in the pews. We quickly replaced them with the NIV - but don't worry, I immediately saw the error of my ways when it became apparent that folks could understand most passages, and even wondered why they needed a pastor. At first I simply pointed out all the places where the NIV was a tool of the devil. (Of course, this confused the older folks, who had always been taught that the RSV was a tool of Satan - and they wondered about the relationship between the devil and Satan. ) I now use the Koine Greek when I read the NT during the service, as it is particularly important for the congregation to realize how much smarter I am. During the sermon, I spend at least half of my time explaining theological difficulties of various texts, with particular emphases on questions of tenses and verb usage. I have found this to be a blessing for the single mom raising two boys on a very limited income. On the other hand, the senior adults wondering if the Lord will help them buy their medicine this week while also being able to afford food really seem to enjoy my regular tangents into discussion of authorship, especially during my 26 week series on "Jesus as a priest in the order of Melchizedek."

We are now dedicating ourselves to a season of prayer for our pastors in many countries, who might only have a single page of the Bible at any one time. We are worried that they might not have the appropriate translation.

:smilies0717:

[Melissa DeBono]

I would keep an eye to the skies for lightening, Mike.

[John Kennedy]

I would keep an eye to the skies for lightening, Mike.

You might also listen for heavenly laughter.

[Ryan Plott]

I just wonder how accurate it is to call the Son of Man "The Human One"? I know Christ was all human but He was also all God. So calling Him the Human One seems to be saying He was.... all human.

On the theological side of things, I think there's a difference between all human and just human.

[David Showalter]

When I arrived at our church, the KJV was in the pews. We quickly replaced them with the NIV - but don't worry, I immediately saw the error of my ways when it became apparent that folks could understand most passages, and even wondered why they needed a pastor. At first I simply pointed out all the places where the NIV was a tool of the devil. (Of course, this confused the older folks, who had always been taught that the RSV was a tool of Satan - and they wondered about the relationship between the devil and Satan. ) I now use the Koine Greek when I read the NT during the service, as it is particularly important for the congregation to realize how much smarter I am. During the sermon, I spend at least half of my time explaining theological difficulties of various texts, with particular emphases on questions of tenses and verb usage. I have found this to be a blessing for the single mom raising two boys on a very limited income. On the other hand, the senior adults wondering if the Lord will help them buy their medicine this week while also being able to afford food really seem to enjoy my regular tangents into discussion of authorship, especially during my 26 week series on "Jesus as a priest in the order of Melchizedek."

We are now dedicating ourselves to a season of prayer for our pastors in many countries, who might only have a single page of the Bible at any one time. We are worried that they might not have the appropriate translation.

:smilies0717:

Mike, as this conversation was beginning to exceed my academic understanding, I, for one, appreciate you bringing it back down to my level.

[Gina Stevenson]

Mike, as this conversation was beginning to exceed my academic understanding, I, for one, appreciate you bringing it back down to my level.

Not exactly "laughing," but "smiling" at Mike's lengthy satirical post. ;)

[Rene Tetro]

I've traditionally had a preference for the NASB, and I would say that overall it is still my favorite. In the past couple of years, however, I've found myself using the NRSV. I really like the structure and cadence.

On those days when I am waxing nostalgic I still take out the KJV. For absolute beauty of language, nothing can compare. The only modern translation that has come close was the New English Bible, which is now out of print. The NEB was a British translation that fairly successfully replicated the beauty of the KJV in a modern, readable text.

[Bruce Barnard]

The CEB is a good Bible to help convey meaning to a listener in worship who may not be overly familiar with scripture...it's a bit more complete than The Message, though I find reading both to be interesting and enlightening ...

[Cam Pence]

Any comments or observations about the new/updated NIV translation? Also, if you could influence folks to use a certain translation, what would you steer them toward in this day and age. Lastly, is it more helpful, or beneficial for the majority of a gathered group to be using the same translation, or just as well for everyone to have whatever they are used to as scripture is read, discussed, and explored?

Don't know too much about the new NIV, but in regards to your last question, I think we are very blessed to have a number of translations at our disposal. I personally use a number of versions for study among them the NASB, NKJV, NRSV, and ESV. I preach mostly out of the ESV, NKJV, and NIV because I really prefer the readability of those the most. For me having several translations to use helps me with tough pieces of Scripture. I may not quite grasp it with the ESV but will get a better perspective on it from the NRSV for example. While I can certainly understand some benefits of using the same translation, I believe that we can gain a better understanding of Scripture and Gods Word to us therein through utilizing a variety. To be honest I can't think of any translations that I absolutely can't stand.

[Anne Hood]

In this day and time, young Christians might not be able to understand the KJV, even though, that is what I was raised, on, and how scriptures come to my mind. We prefer the NIV and the New Kings James version, otherwise. My husband uses the New KJV for his sermons.
I have a very old letter from Dr. Earle telling me about the NIV and the KJV. We had moved to another church and an old charter member from the precious church called me, upset about the NIV scripture in the SS lessons. i suggested that she write-I forgot who, and I would write Dr. Earle. He wrote to me on Holiday Inn stationary, and I decided it would not help for me to share the letter with the lady who called me. but, I treasure it. I think that was about 1983.

[Gina Stevenson]

It might have helped her, Anne. If she was a KJV-only gal, she might have taken some "higher-up's" word for it that it was OK to use another version. ;)

[Peggy Gray]

Does the Church of the Nazarene have an official or "official" position on this topic?

[Rich Schmidt]

Does the Church of the Nazarene have an official or "official" position on this topic?

A long time ago, the Church of the Nazarene standardized on the NIV for all its publications (curriculum, Bible Quizzing, etc). But there's no official or "official" position about what translations are acceptable or unacceptable for use in churches.

[Peggy Gray]

Do you think this is a topic that should be included in membership discussions?

[Hans Deventer]

Does the Church of the Nazarene have an official or "official" position on this topic?

I've been surprised to find resolutions to the General Assembly that tried to make an ENGLISH version the official one. Did they really expect the rest of the world to read an English translation only?

Bottom line, how on earth can the CotN have an official translation? Do people really need some list with the preferred translation in each and every nation and language group we have a presence in? That's probably going to be a list of several hundred translations. I can't get my mind around the very idea alone.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I've been surprised to find resolutions to the General Assembly that tried to make an ENGLISH version the official one. Did they really expect the rest of the world to read an English translation only?

Bottom line, how on earth can the CotN have an official translation? Do people really need some list with the preferred translation in each and every nation and language group we have a presence in? That's probably going to be a list of several hundred translations. I can't get my mind around the very idea alone.

Seems to me that to pick an "official" translation would be a very legalistic act. And no matter which one they picked, in any language it would be the wrong one.

[Peggy Gray]

I guess what I meant was, do we or should we have something, somewhere that makes it clear that we do NOT, as a denomination, believe there is a single translation that is the "real" Bible? I'm sorry I'm not able to get my point across clearly. I'm still working on it.

[Hans Deventer]

I guess what I meant was, do we or should we have something, somewhere that makes it clear that we do NOT, as a denomination, believe there is a single translation that is the "real" Bible? I'm sorry I'm not able to get my point across clearly. I'm still working on it.

No. But I would say the proof is the other way around. There are numerous translations. In order to backup the claim that one of those would be the official one, someone would have to come up with a statement from the General Assembly or the Board of General Superintendents to back it up with. But there is none.
Obviously, we cannot even begin making statements like "we have no official view on topic X" because there is no end to it.

Also, the General Assembly has always rejected attempts to make one translation the official one. If you really want to, you could ask Dr. Stan Ingersol at the Archives for information on these attempts and how the GA dealt with them.