1. Evaluating Modern Translations: Another Perspective. Part 1 Glenn L. Schwanke Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17 NIV 84)

2. Jesus ’ Guarantee Matthew 5:18 “ I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ” God ’ s Word will be preserved, to the “ dotting of an I ” or the “ crossing of a t. ”

3. Jesus ’ Guarantee 2 Timothy 3:16 “ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. ” Verbal (word for word) inspiration

4. NIV 84 is going the way of the dodo. E-books are NIV 2011. The NIV on biblegateway.com is the NIV 2011.

5. NIV 2011= NIV NIV 84 replaced by NIV 2011 (March, 2011) Some old stock may remain. (Concordia Self-Study Bible still available at Amazon.com)

6. WELS response? WELS TEC formed 2010 WELS Translation Evaluation Committee created. 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 Rev. Joel Petermann, president of Michigan Lutheran Seminary

7. Initial Recommendation Synod Convention 2011 (re NIV 2011) “ We believe it could be used as a translation for our synod ’ s publications. ” Not everyone agreed, so further study was needed.

8. TEC To Develop Consensus Matter to be presented to District Convention, 2012 2/3 majority needed to approve NIV 2011 If no majority, matter to be deferred to Synod Convention, 2013

9. TEC prepares 4- Part Bible Study Lesson 1: Which Bible is the Word of God Lesson 2: Understanding the challenges of translation Lesson 3: The problem with language Lesson 4: Principles and purposes http://tinyurl.com/czhms5y

10. Translation Symposium Held January 3-5, 2012, WLS Mequon Who attended? Translation Evaluation Committee 2 Pastors from each district (including Pastor Glenn Schwanke) Several NPH editors Several professors Selected District Officials Selected Synodical officials (Symposium report at www.peacehoughton.org)www.peacehoughton.org

11. Report of “ 102 ” Summer 2012 102 reviewers in 3 groups Group #1 Synod Workers Group #2 Translation Symposium attendees Group #3 Young Pastors (WLS graduates 2000-2009) Scripture divided into 34 sections: 3 reviewers each section I was “ Reviewer 2 ” of Isaiah 40-66.

12. Review of “ 102 ” Results Published Fall 2012 Results available at http://tinyurl.com/buqdexv Numerical Data Summaries available ESV, HCSB, NIV 2011 reviewer ’ s comments Reviewers ’ comments about the criteria and procedures. (My comments are those of Isaiah 40-66, Reviewer 2)

13. Recommendation of TEC For Synod Convention, 2013 In "Option 1," WELS adopts NIV 2011 for use in materials produced by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH).

14. Recommendation of TEC "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").

15. Rationale For Recommendation? Option 2 is offered because... “ it may be that our church body simply cannot achieve the level of consensus about NIV 2011 that will enable us to continue to “ walk together ” in important areas of our work. ” (TEC 2013 report, lines 262-264)

16. Basic Principles of Translation Word for word? (Formal equivalent) Thought for thought? (Functional or Dynamic equivalent) Somewhere in between?

17. Basic Principles of Translation Word for word Pros: We can see exactly what was said Less chance to have the translation influenced by theological viewpoints Cons: Bad English, hard to read (Might sound like Yoda) Idioms are lost Meaning itself can be lost

18. Basic Principles of Translation Thought for thought Pros: Original intent is made clear Easy to read Cons: Allows for translators to impose their own spin Is the thought accurately being conveyed?

19. The Range of Translation!

20. Principles for Translation 1. Is it based on an appropriate original text? Jesus promised that God ’ s Word will never pass away (Mt 24:35). Did the translators follow the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text of the Bible?

21. Principles for Translation 2. Does it render the original text faithfully? Every word of the original Bible text is God ’ s inspired, error- free Word (Verbal Inspiration). Does the translation faithfully and accurately convey the same meaning as the original text of God ’ s holy Word?

22. Principles for Translation 3. Is it doctrinally sound? Professor Armin Panning put it this way: “ Does the translation of this passage agree with what God says about the subject in other passages? For us purity of doctrine must ever remain the essential test of a translation. To endorse a translation that features crisp, contemporary English and that ‘ reads like a novel ’ but subtly blends in error or undercuts the reader ’ s confidence in the reliability of God ’ s Holy Word is to court disaster. ” (The NASB: Is This the Answer? Pg. 5) Let Scripture Interpret Scripture!

23. Principles for Translation 4. Is the receptor (target) language acceptable? This is a matter of judgment and taste. No translation is perfect. But can you understand what the translation says?

24. Additional Translation Principles A faithful translation will reflect the language register of the original text. The book of Hebrews is more difficult Greek than John. The translation will reflect this and not “ dummy down ” the Greek of the original.

25. Additional Translation Principles A faithful translation will reflect the linguistic style of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Job is archaic Hebrew. A faithful translation will reflect that and not be driven to “ contemporize ” what wasn ’ t contemporary in the first place. אִ ֛ ישׁ הָיָ ֥ ה בְאֶֽרֶץ־ע ֖ וּץ אִיּ ֣ וֹב שְׁמ ֑ וֹ (Job 1:1)

26. Translational Concerns with Modern translations Messianic Prophecy Textual Criticism Gender Accuracy Adjusting Language register Explicitation HUH?

27. A Simpler Approach: Kick The Tires! You can drive a car, even if you ’ re not a mechanic. We can read our Bible without being a translational philosophy expert!

28. Let ’ s adapt a Key TEC Question! “ Will we have difficulty teaching... doctrine using this Bible? ” (Doctrinal, Exegetical, Translational: K. Cherney, Jr., 14/07/11)

29. A Pastor/Teacher Approach Using modern translations, will we have difficulty teaching doctrine in the … Parish (pulpit, BIC, ABC, personal Bible reading, family devotions, evangelism, shut-in calls, counseling, etc.) Sunday School, Vacation Bible School Lutheran Elementary School Lutheran Area High Schools Worker Training Schools

30. A Pastor/Teacher Approach Let ’ s compare these translations. NIV 84 NIV 2011 ESV (English Standard Version) HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) NKJ (New King James) Other

31. A Pastor/Teacher Approach Let ’ s compare these translations in these key areas: Messianic Prophecy Textual Criticism Gender Accuracy Adjusting Language register Explicitation See the hand-out “A Pastor/Teacher Comparison of Key Verses” for the full comparisons.