Which Version Do You Preach From?

I've known a lot of very Godly men in my 59 years. I haven't met too many who think the NIV is a "good" translation. They don't care if you use it, and wouldn't "put you down" if you did, but they all say, for SERIOUS Bible study, the NIV falls short.

 

It is gender inclusive when there is no gender specificity in the text. There's nothing wrong with that.

By the way, the project coordinator was a staunch complementarian and so were many on the translation board.

 

The TNIV isn't any more gender inclusive than the ESV for what its worth. Every translation has its theological peccadilloes, even the HCSB uses what some might accuse of gender inclusive language. (I don't buy it though)

As this has turned (helpfully) into a conversation about method I'll toss this in. While I use the HCSB as the primary text for teaching/preaching in my preparation I always start with the original languages and translate for myself, usually including diagramming. Helps get to know the text really well.

Then I consult multiple translations (NIV2010, ESV, NASU, KJV, NET) during my study. This lets me see how the different translators brought together (or punted) important theological insights. If I can take 30 seconds and mention why something is translated differently I'll take that time and turn it into a teachable moment. I love getting into a text and seeing how people approach different passages.

Then I get into commentaries and other study aids.

So when I speak I am well prepared to know the passage. As a point of ministry practice I am committed to digging into Scripture regardless of the kind of message (topical, exegetical, character study, etc) because that is our authority. One's points must come from Scripture not the other way around.

 

So when you are translating the passages yourself, the people aren't hearing the God-breathed document but rather a man-made translation? Do you also tell them that they are commanded to follow something they cannot read, unless they decide to trust your man-made translation?

 

That struck me a little funny too.

 

What great preachers have done for years is funny??

It's called "exegeting Scripture". Good preachers do it.

 

Duh- ALL translations are man-made!!!

 

Are you suggesting that Scripture was given by dictation to human authors who had no influence in its construction? Or was it dropped out of the sky?

Also, the only thoroughly inspired document is the original...so unless you want people listen to the good Doctor (and several other of us) read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek aloud with no translation than you can't meet the burden you're suggesting here.

How is his work different than the translation committee for _________ English translation?

 

I know about fifty New Testament scholars that would disagree with you.

 

And that's OK. It's their opinion. My opinion is different. I could probably get 50 New Testament scholars that agree with me. Everyone has to make their own decision. Personally, I find the NIV lacking.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood him. I just have a problem with "preachers" who say things like- "Let me tell you what that really means." I've seen to many "shysters" doing that. I have the Holy Spirit to guide me.


My Pastor has said from the pulpit quite often to "not take me at my word, examine the Scriptures for yourself." I like that. He's right.
I don't know Dr. Bob, but he could be totally off base on something he's preaching. I like studying it for myself.

 

I'm suggesting that this nonsense about "only the originals are inspired" tells the average American who cannot read greek that they are trusting in something man-made rather than something that came from God.

I've never stated nor believed that translators were inspired when they translated in the same way that the original authors were inspired. At the same time, I've never believed the rubbish that only the originals were inspired. If that english bible I study everyday isn't the inspired word of God, then I might as well throw it in the trashcan.

I firmly believe that the line of reasoning that says only the originals are inspired are an incredibly useful way for some man to insert himself between God and man.

 

Well that's what they are doing. I mean there is an element to faith in how we use any translation. We are trusting in faith that the translation is accurate and an infallible guide just like the original text. This is easily checkable btw and modern scholarship is a robust discipline that has provided just what we're saying.

That's crazy logic. What if you more clearly defined your position the modern translations are authentic and trustworthy communications of the inspired text? Seems to work better.

This "all or nothing" just doesn't work. It's not practical or realistic.

It's like Young Earthers who say "well if God didn't do it in 6 days 8,000 years ago its all a lie" no, no its not. Don't take that position that's a tight, and unrealistic box to put things in.

Well I don't believe God dictated the text to individuals who just mindlessly scribbled it out. There was a dynamic process of inspiration where God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, influenced the inerrant authoring of the originals that were conditioned by the context, personality, culture, and background of each author.

Nevertheless, perhaps this is a worthy discussion for another thread. You have some good points.

 

I doubt that Dr. Bob would stop or hinder you from studying what he preaches or teaches yourself. But, it may be difficult to keep up with him in doing so. That is not his fault, and I can't see why a preacher/teacher should have to dumb down the study of the Word just so that everyone can grasp the intricate details of a true exegesis. But, a good preacher/teacher should be able to take those nuances and difficult translations and make them understandable to the people, who follow along in their own English Bibles, which I am fairly convinced that he does from reading his posts here on the board.

What stops you from purchasing a concordance or a Greek or Hebrew Interlinear and grammar and doing some discovery on your own?
That is what I've always done when a pastor wants to tell me what a passage means when what he says goes against the plain English (which it sometimes does!).

I have noted that a big portion of how we understand Bible passages is based as much on our tradition and what has been taught in our churches more than in accurate exegesis of any given text. I see it on this board all the time! People whip out their favorite proof-text as if that solves a thousand-year-old problem (and as if no one has ever considered that passage before).

I also see where preachers give their own thoughts and beliefs on a subject and then whip out a Bible verse to "prove" it. But what is happening? They are saying, "See, I am right and the Bible says so..." What about preaching that stems directly FROM the Bible instead of tacking Bible verses onto the pastor's thoughts? I venture that most would not know a true exegetical sermon if it were laid in front of them because a lot of people have never been exposed to that type of preaching.

It was years before I actually found a pastor who was doing that, and that was in multiple churches (and that includes me before I learned what exegetical meant).

This is not meant to be an attack, just questions for consideration.

Does your pastor diagram the text in the original language to see what is actually being said, by whom, and to whom? Does he lay out the original moral, rule, lesson, example, etc., then consider the implications for today's world? Does he know if the verb forms are locked into the past with ongoing consequences, or perhaps already, but not yet fulfilled, or actions in the past with a future culmination, etc.? There are 18 verb forms in Greek, only 6 in English -- you just cannot translate some Greek terms into a single word, so indeed, the pastor might say, "This is what this means." Does he allow the text to drive the message, or is he a preacher that is always changing up things because "God spoke to me this morning and I had to change the message I had prepared..." Is doing that more "holy" than allowing the living Word to drive the sermon or sermon series?

Just a few questions that a true exegetical preacher/teacher will consider.

 

Well fair enough. There are parts of it that I have trouble with too.

That said I wholly recommend it for anyone who is new the Christianity as a great first step in their faith journey and tool for regular devotionals.

 

Perhaps not... Have you ever read the Chicago Declaration? And I don't imagine you tossing out your Bible. I'm thinking that you are speaking for effect. :tonofbricks:

We really have no evidence that any translation (manuscript) is actually inspired. We do have Scriptural evidence that the original writers of the original autographs were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But, of course, you have heard that argument, what, 1000 times or more on this board?

How DO you explain the fact that people are getting "saved" by using an NIV Bible, or a Chinese Bible, or a Spanish Bible, or the NASB, or ESV (for starters)? I've always felt that the Bible one read is the best Bible. The one that stays on the shelf is worthless, even if it is the most beloved translation of all time. How DO you explain that one translation, preferred by many members here, has been changed multiple, multiple times over its life. Too much stock placed in a book of words and not enough on the true source of inspiration -- the Holy Spirit -- who can illumine ANY text that one reads. Why, I even had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness come to true faith by reading that horrid translation. With God nothing is impossible!

 

They quote various.

 

Do you seriously think the KJV is a good translation to study from? How many scholars would agree with that proposition?