LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 141

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

CONGREGATIONAL SERVICES 14]

WHEREAS, The LCMS’s Concordia Publishing House first pub-
lished the New Testament part of An American Translation of the
Bible by Dr William F. Beck in 1963; and

WHEREAS, Various conventions of the LCMS encouraged CPH
to publish the entire An American Translation (see the preface to
the AAT, p. xii); and

WuereEAS, The 1973 convention of the LCMS said that “Con-
cordia Publishing House plans to publish the complete Bible trans-
lation by Dr. William Beck early in 1974”; and

Wuereas, CPH then declined to publish the entire AAT after a
$25,000 market survey showed that the publication of the AAT
would not be a profit-making venture; and

WHEREAS, The fact that Christian News, a small independent
publication with no funds for marketing, then published and sold
about 250,000 copies of the AAT shows that there was a demand
for the AAT; and

WHEREAS, The use of a wide variety of modern Bible transla-
tions has not helped the memorization of Bible passages; and

WHEREAS, No modern Bible translation followed Martin
Luther’s principles of translation more closely than Beck’s AAT;
and

WHEREAS, The New Evangelical Translation of the Luther Bible
Society (later called God’s Word to the Nations Bible Society) is a
helpful revision of the AAT with many important footnotes; and

WHEREAS, No modern translation like Luther’s translation better
shows the fact that Jesus Christ is at the center of both the Old and
New Testament with its translation and italicizing of the key Mes-
sianic prophecies; and

WHEREAS, It is recognized that Lutherans have never had some
“official” translation; therefore be it

Resolved, That the 1998 convention of the LCMS ask Concor-
dia Publishing House to use primarily the AAT-NET in all educa-
tional and devotional literature and in any new hymnal; and be it
further

Resolved, That CPH seek permission from the copyright holders
to publish the AAT-NET, and be it finally

Resolved, That the 1998 convention of the LCMS encourage all
pastors and laymen to have a regular program of Bible reading and
private devotions, recommending the use of Portals of Prayer with
its Bible readings for those who do not already have their own de-
votional guide.

Trinity, New Haven, MO; Immanuel, Clovis, NM

2-53

To Reexamine Use of NIV in Catechism
and Other Synodical Publications

WHEREAS, For many years the New International Version (NIV)
has been used as the unofficial “official” Bible translation for our
Synod’s printed materials (catechism, hymnal, Sunday school ma-
terials, VBS curricula, books, etc.); and

WHEREAS, Individuals, including those who are not Lutheran,
have noted that the NIV is a flawed Bible version containing mis-
translations in line with Reformed theology, and is more of a para-
phrase than an accurate translation (M. R. Totten, “Reformed and
Neo-Evangelical Theology in English Translations of the Bible,”
Concordia Theological Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 3 [July 1981], pp.
193-207; Robert P. Martin writes that “the NIV translators fre-
quently engaged in paraphrase,” and that “paraphrase is not an iso-
lated phenomenon in the NIV.” Robert P. Martin, Accuracy of
Translation and the New International Version: The Primary Crite-
rion in Evaluating Bible Versions [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1989], p. 63; “The NIV is ... too free in its translation ... the
NIV misuses this freedom for doctrinal purposes ... The NIV ...
cannot be considered a reliable substitute for the KFV or even the
RSV.” Jakob van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (Nashville,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers, 1978], p. 149); and

WHEREAS, The 1991 synodical catechism used all the NIV Bible
verses that the CTCR said were “not reflecting the original as well
as” they should or were deemed “not usable” in a Lutheran cate-
chism. (Comparative Study of Bible Translations and Paraphrases:
Report of the Bible Versions Committee [St. Louis: Commission
on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS, September
1975], pp. 20-22); and

WHEREAS, Faulty translations in the NIV first edition—which
were subsequently changed because of their faultiness—are con-
tained in our Synod’s publications, e.g., the 1997 Sunday School
Rally Day Service Gospel reading, and in Lutheran Worship, pp.
19, -103—John 1:14: “The Word became flesh and lived for a while
among us”; and

WHEREAS, This past year the committee that oversees the NIV
attempted to modify the NIV to make it “gender neutral” or “‘in-
clusive” (Susan Olasky, “Femme Fatale,” World (March 29, 1997),
pp. 12-15); and:

WHEREAS, These modifications were objected to because they
attacked inspiration, changed verb tenses, singulars to plurals, the
gender of persons, and removed messianic prophecy from certain
Old Testament passages (Wayne Grudem, “Do Inclusive-Language
Bibles Distort Scripture? Yes.” Christianity Today (Oct. 27, 1997],
pp. 27-32; Susan Olasky, “The Battle for the Bible,” World [April
19, 1997], pp. 14-18]; and

WHEREAS, Only after great public outcry were these proposed
changes dropped for the time being (Susan Olasky, “Leave It Just
As It Is,” World [May 31/June 7, 1997], p. 16; Doug LeBlanc,
“Hands Off My NIV!” Christianity Today [June 16, 1997], pp.
52-53, 55; CBMW News [June 1997], pp. 1, 3-14; Susan Olasky,
“Bailing Out of the Stealth Bible,” World [June 14/21, 1997], pp.
12-17); and

WHEREAS, The Synod’s Constitution requires “an exclusive use
of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church
and school” (Constitution, Art. VI 4); and

WHEREAS, The NIV even in its present form raises serious ques-
tions about doctrinal purity and confessional subscription since it
contains translations that are contrary to or condemned in the
Lutheran Confessions, unfaithful to the biblical text, and raise ques-
tions about the doctrine of inspiration (The NIV rendering of Acts
3 “He [Jesus] ‘must remain in heaven” is condemned in the
Lutheran Confessions—FC SD VII 119; the Confessions state that
Eph. 4:12 is a reference to the office of the holy ministry [Treatise
67], whereas the NIV rendering of verse 12 [1991 BP 507] makes
this impossible—the 1943 Catechism uses Eph. 4:10—12 of the of-
fice of the holy ministry [1943, p. 185], while the 1991 edition
drops verse 12 [1991 BP 906]; the NIV translation makes Titus 3:6
[“whom”] a reference to the so-called “Holy Spirit baptism,”
whereas a proper translation [“which,” Small Catechism IV 10]
emphasizes the fact that this verse is a reference to the baptismal
washing and renewal “which” the Spirit pours out on us abundantly
in Baptism. Martin warns the church that continued use of the NIV
will cause the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible to be lost in
future generations [p. 69]. Other problematic NIV translations ap-
pearing in the 1991 Catechism are BP’s 76, 79, 124, 127, 262, 315,
358, 388, 399, 409, 410, 445, 473, 488, 502, 504, 515, 519, 552,
566, 582, 602, 612, 616, 833, 836, 868, 897, 931, 932, 945, 956,
961); and

WHEREAS, The proposed yet now abandoned inclusive language
changes to the NIV could be implemented at any time in the fu-
ture; therefore be it

Resolved, That the President of the Synod reexamine the use of
the NIV in synodical publications and bring forth a recommenda-
tion concerning which Bible version should be used in future days
in synodical publications, catechisms, Sunday school materials, the
new hymnal, etc.

St. Paul
Waseca, MN