Which Bible Translation Is Best?

I believe that the best answer to this question is not to limit yourself to one translation.

Whenever you go from one language to another, you can either try to go word-for-word (this is called "formal equivalence," or a "literal translation") or thought-for-thought (so-called "dynamic equivalence," possibly more of a "paraphrase"). A quick and easy example of this is Spanish buenos dias. If you translate the words, you get "good days." But the thought expressed is "hello."

As an aside, to clear up one common misconception, new Bible translations are always made from the original Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible. Some people think that the Bible has been retranslated over-and-over, such as from Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin, from Latin to German, from German to Old English, from Old English to Modern English. If that were the case, then there would be some truth to this notion about losing something in the translation each time and possibly ending up not knowing what it's supposed to say at all. But the reality is that translators — and many pastors — work with the texts in their original languages.

But it is true that something gets lost in translation. For example, the English expression, "Put up or shut up," isn't going to have the same oomph in another language when the rhyme and rhythm aren't there. Nuances and word plays are difficult to bring from one language to another.

On the one hand, a word-for-word translation tries to be "faithful" to the original text by being able to claim, "This is what it says." In extreme (but not uncommon) cases, effort is made to use the same part of speech (verb, noun, adjective), such as translating John 19:28 as "I thirst" (using a verb, as in Greek) instead of "I'm thirsty" (using an adjective, as we would normally do in English).

On the other hand, a thought-for-thought translation tries to be "faithful" to the original text by saying, "This is what it means." Thus the NIV translates the "work of faith and labor of love" of 1 Thessalonians 1:3 as "work produced by faith [and] labor prompted by love."

Either way, you're going to lose a little something. A good solution is to use both. There are parallel Bibles which have different translations in parallel columns on the same page, and web sites like www.biblegateway.com allow you to quickly and easily compare multiple versions.

Here are my favorites:

• King James Version (KJV). A classic, unbeatable for beauty and endurance, plus an excellent literal (word-for-word) translation, going so far as to italicize words that had to be inserted in English to make it flow when there is not a corresponding word in the Greek original. But it is hard to read, especially if you're not used to it. Memorize special passages (like the 23rd Psalm) in King James, but look them up in other versions to make sure you know what they're saying! The KJV is sometimes referred to as the Authorized Version (AV).
  
• New International Version (NIV). This is what I grew up with, so this is what usually "sounds right" to me. It's a good translation, maybe halfway between word-for-word and thought-for-thought, so that sometimes it feels like it fails at both. You should also try its successor:
• Today's New International Version (TNIV). More than a simple updating, the TNIV moves the NIV toward the thought-for-thought philosophy of translation. It handles gender-inclusive language accurately, using inclusive terms like "people" when both men and women (and children!) are meant by the original (such as 1 Timothy 2:4) but never trying to neutralize gender language for God, who is consistently "he," unlike some other modern translations. The main drawback is that it accomplishes gender-inclusive language at the expense of the original wording, using plurals for singular, for example, which could lead to misunderstandings.
• English Standard Version (ESV). Some of you will be familiar with the Revised Standard Version (RSV) which came out in the 1950's to succeed the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. In 1989, a revision of the revision was made, called the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). To avoid calling this one "Yet Another New and Improved Revised Standard Version" (YANIRSV), the 2001 version is called simply English Standard Version. I like it because it is very literal, in the tradition of the KJV, but much easier to read than King James. It also reverts some unnecessary (and biased) changes, such as restoring "virgin" to Isaiah 7:14, where RSV and NRSV have "young woman."
• Other translations. I'm not a huge fan of "The Message" because I think its author (Eugene Peterson) got much too interpretative in many places, but it's interesting to read and get its unique perspective, as long as you have a more literal translation nearby to make sure that the Bible really says what Eugene Peterson says that it says.
• Original languages. For the really serious student of the Bible! Even learning a little Hebrew and Greek opens up worlds of possibilities in reading commentaries and other resources like lexicons for word studies.
  

Is There Proof that Jesus Really Lived?

This was a great question that came up last Sunday in confirmation class. What was even better was that some of the other kids helped to answer the question, with things like, "There's more proof that Jesus lived than Julius Caesar." (This was a reference, I believe, to the sheer quantity of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament and their close age to Christ, which does make the number and age of Caesar manuscripts pale in comparison.)

Some people might not accept the New Testament as a source, however, believing it to be biased. In that case, there are the writings of two "hostile witnesses," the Jewish historian Josephus (from about A.D. 70) and the Roman historian Tacitus (just a bit later), both of whom describe Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure.

What we don't have is a lot of archaeological evidence. In fact, there was no archaeological evidence of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, causing some scholars to doubt his existence until a stone inscription was found in 1961, corroborating the Biblical account -- once again. Archaeology often confirms what we find in the Bible, but we can't rely on it alone -- not everything has been preserved, so the saying goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So our "evidence" is mainly historical and Biblical. Luke himself proves to be quite the historian when he reports the care with which he checked out the stories he included in his Gospel. Peter also says that he gives eyewitness testimony. They (and others) tell us that we shouldn't expect a lot of remains -- there is no tomb, no ossuary (bone box), no body, for Christ is risen and ascended on high!

Quoting Scripture on ER

Did anyone see ER last night? Does anyone watch that show anymore? We used to watch it all the time but haven't in years, but we left the TV on last night and heard Abby Lockhart reading from the Bible in a voice-over, a sorrowful lament:

Why is light given to him who is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul?

This continued in snippets throughout the episode, all from the same book of the Bible. Do you know which one? Here's another passage that was read, part of God's reply:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?

I don't think it ever showed her reading, but it did show her holding a Bible at one point. Very interesting to hear Scripture quoted at such length on a prime-time network television show. It was a rather contemplative episode, in which Abby leaves the hospital and moves to Boston. Hopefully she (and others) also know this verse from the same book of the Bible:

I know that my Redeemer lives.

Do you know which book of the Bible it is? If not, check these links: [1] [2] [3]

Communing with the Enemy

Should you receive Communion if you have unresolved conflict with someone? The question may be even more pointed if that person is at the same Communion rail with you! One passage that's often quoted to say that you shouldn't is Matthew 5:23-24. Now I don't think that this applies directly to Communion, but in fact it applies to a much broader aspect of our life that also includes Communion.

The passage is from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says:

²³So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (ESV)

Maybe especially because Lutherans sometimes refer to the Lord's Supper as "The Sacrament of the Altar," we have applied this passage to Communion. But it says, "If you are offering your gift." In Communion we don't offer a gift; we receive the gift of Christ's body and blood. When do we offer gifts at the altar? That is an act of worship. Not just on Sunday mornings in church, either: Paul writes that our entire lives are to be an act of worship (see Romans 12:1).

So we can't live our lives in service to God if we have unresolved conflict with someone, especially a Christian brother or sister. That conflict will get in the way of everything, including Communion. The conflict must be dealt with. But how?

Jesus gives us some specific guidelines in Matthew 18:15-18, which can be summarized like this: Try to work it out just between the two of you (that is, keep it private if possible), but if that doesn't work, then involve a couple of other people to serve as mediators. If that doesn't work, then the sin is to be made public, and the individual is given one last chance before excommunication.

If that sounds extreme, it is. Before it gets to that final step, you would have to ask yourself, "Can I make a case that the person who has offended me is an unrepentant sinner, or is this just a disagreement in which I hold one opinion and they hold another, and despite how firmly we hold our opinions, neither can be definitively proven from Scripture, so we just have to agree to disagree?"

I suspect that most people never make it that far. If they say something to the person who has offended them and they don't get an apology, they feel justified in holding a grudge. They don't involve another person (whether the pastor, an elder, or a trusted friend), when that might be just the thing to emphasize to the offender how seriously they have been hurt and then elicit the apology.

Follow the steps that Jesus Himself has laid out, and God willing, you won't be communing with the enemy — you'll be sharing Communion with your sister or brother in Christ.

Is the Bible Literally True?

Should the Bible be interpreted literally? The best answer to this question is not "yes" or "no," but "it depends." The Bible should be interpreted literally when it is speaking literally, and it should be interpreted figuratively when it is speaking figuratively.

It is clear that the Bible uses figurative language. Jesus often spoke using parables. Last week's readings (Isaiah 5:1-7 and Matthew 21:33-46) were passages describing a vineyard that really had nothing to do with a literal vineyard, but were all about the kingdom of God; the "good grapes" of Isaiah 5 that the Lord wanted were not literal grapes, but the "fruit" (figuratively speaking) of good works.

Thus there are two errors you could make in this regard. One would be to take a figurative passage and interpret it literally; this often happens with the book of Revelation. The other would be to take a literal passage and interpret it figuratively; this is often the case with the books of Genesis and Jonah.

But how can you tell? Usually it is quite clear, but people have preconceived notions that color their interpretation. The book of Revelation, for example, is full of figurative language, such as Jesus being described as a lamb with seven eyes. It is completely inappropriate to suddenly interpret certain passages literally, even when numbers are involved. Just as "seven" is symbolic of completeness (thus seven eyes symbolize the omniscience of Christ, seeing everything), so the span of 1,000 years is symbolic of "a long time" and refers to the age in which we now live, not some future Messianic kingdom lasting exactly 1,000 years.

On the other hand, some will try to maintain that the Creation account in Genesis 1-2 is not incompatible with evolution, if you interpret the six "days" of creation as six "epochs"; likewise, the long ages of the antediluvian patriarchs are held by some to be symbolic of something rather than literal years. But the book of Genesis continues without interruption through Noah and the Flood right on to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his 12 sons, who are clearly presented as historical. There is no shift in language or theme anywhere in Genesis, as though the author thought that Creation was a myth but Abraham was real.

I haven't yet answered the question of whether the Creation account of Genesis actually happened. (I believe that it did, but that will have to be the subject of a future blog post.) My point here is that you cannot say, "I believe the Bible is true, but Genesis is a figurative account of how God created life through evolution." If you want to believe in evolution, you have to concede that the Bible got it wrong. (Maybe you're OK with that; personally, I'm not.)

What about Cremation?

I sometimes still get questions about cremation. Some people may remember that, years ago, cremation was verboten (forbidden) in the Lutheran church. Has anything changed?

As best as I can tell, many people in the past were trying to make some kind of statement by having their remains cremated. They might have been atheists who denied that there was any kind of existence after death. Apparently, some meant to mock God by having their ashes scattered and not being around for Judgment Day, as if to say, "Try and get me!"

That is foolishness, of course. The Bible itself says, "For dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return" (Genesis 3:19, or see NIV). The same God who created human beings from dust can certainly reassemble scattered ashes in order to fashion a resurrection body for us. Otherwise, what would happen to those who die in fires, or those who perished on 9/11 and whose remains were never recovered?

You might have a number of valid reasons for wanting to be cremated, not the least of which include rising costs for funerals and cemetery plots. Just be sure that you're not denying your hope of resurrection. Death is not the end, but we look forward to the day when Christ will "transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body" (Philippians 3:21).

Countdown to 2017

from the October 2008 “Herald”

The end of this October marks the 491^st anniversary of Martin Luther’s famous nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, sparking a Reformation that had not only theological impact but also far-reaching political, historical, and cultural impact as well. That means that there are “only” nine years to go until the 500th anniversary of this significant event.

There are two important ways that Lutherans can and should prepare for such an important milestone. One is to look “inward,” and the other is to look “outward.”

We can look inward and examine our own history as Lutherans. Gain a deeper understanding of the things that we might take for granted. Can you imagine life today not knowing that your sins were forgiven by Christ’s merit alone? What if we were still under the burden of never knowing whether we had done enough good works for God to accept us? What if Lutheranism had remained a tiny sect in Germany instead of spreading throughout northern Europe and then traveling across the Atlantic?

We should also look outward and see how we can continue to spread the message of Martin Luther, which is the message of Jesus Christ and the hope He brings by His cross and resurrection. In the LCMS, many Lutheran congregations have joined the Ablaze! movement, which seeks to reach 100 million previously unreached people with the Gospel of Christ by that 2017 anniversary date. At OSLC, we have participated largely through the efforts of the Sunday School in mission projects. There is much more we could do.

Like our recent congregational anniversary, a milestone reminds us to give thanks for God’s blessings of the past and to prepare to work in His vineyard in the future!