| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||
| Q: | I understand the the Word of God is the Bible. I also believe that there are no errors in the Bible. My question is this: We have adopted the NIV as our official Bible translation. This does not mean that the NIV is perfect in all its words. What this means is that God has given His message to man. That message is perfect and reliable. If I may borrow the words of one ancient philosopher, the Word of God is the "really real" and the different translations are the "real". Is this a correct understanding? I am not implying that if the NIV or any other translation is not a perfect translation that we should not adhere to it as if it is perfect. The NIV or other translations are interpretations of ancient texts and as such the words are not the exact words. I guess what bothers me is some peoples insistence on exact recital of scripture. Did not even Paul quote scripture in different words? It seems that if the idea is the same then that is OK. As an example: "God created the heavens and the earth." and "God created all the heavens and the whole earth." They mean the same thing. Am I missing something, or is this correct? | ||||||
| A: | Our synod didn't actually adopt the NIV as an "official" translation. Rather, for the sake of consistency a decision had to be made about which translation would be the best to use in our synod's publications (e.g. catechism, hymnbook, Bible class materials, etc.). A lengthy study of all the translations available in the 1970's led to the conclusion to use the NIV. Although it is not a perfect translation, it was the best one available at that time. Bible translation is not really the same as interpretation. A good Bible translation will put the words of the original Hebrew OT and the Greek NT into contemporary English without adding to or subtracting anything from what was said in the original languages. A paraphrase that says basically the same thing as the original can be good in the sense that it may help the reader understand. But a paraphrase also runs the risk of slightly altering the emphasis or the essence of the original. In the example you gave, the added words "all" and "whole" shift the emphasis ever so slightly from the fact that God was the one who did the creating to emphasize what he created. In a doctrinal passage, a paraphrase may alter one small point that is essential in a study of all the passages dealing with that doctrine. Yes, it is true that a Bible passage can often be paraphrased in several ways. But a good translation will try to carry the thought from one language to another as exactly as possible. If a translation does this well, it may be good for us to quote that translation exactly. This would be true, for example, in a catechism class or adult information class or a sermon or a Bible class in which we are addressing a doctrine that God teaches. At other times, it may be good for us to paraphrase a passage (if the paraphrase states the essence of the passage well). An example would be when we are seeking to put the meaning of the passage in different words to assist people in their comprehension of that passage. At times Paul did quote passages exactly, at other times he paraphrased them. This reminds us that both ways of quoting Scripture have their purpose. | ||||||
| |||||||