Ignorance About the Word & Poor Readers

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[theresearchpersona]

Something that was shocking to me in GC, though we've been over points of this, was the lack of ability in answering questions (or, at least, correctly) regarding the Bible, translations, etc.. For instance, some of the men being appointed to be Pastors in GC seem to read the NLT, NLT, NLT; any time Tom Short was caught on a plaza by a translational question about differences between them "how can there be so many translations if they all mean the same thing" he'd try the "give me two separate translations, somebody, and turn to John 3:16" (crowds never bought that trickery).

Craig Blomberg, the translator of the NLT's gospel of Matthew, very contrary to the marketers of the version (who should be laughed out of town like snake-oil salesmen about how accurate and wonderful their paraphrase is), wrote,

I relished the chance to work on the NLT (New Living Translation) team to convert the LBP into a truly dynamic-equivalent translation, but I never recommend it to anyone except to supplement the reading of a more literal translation to generate freshness and new insights, unless they are kids or very poor adult readers. My sixteen- and twelve-year old daughters have been weaned on the NLT and have loved it, but both already on their own are now frequently turning to the NIV.

Often this version seemed very popular among "pastors" and "leaders", so I wonder how "mature" these "leaders" really are.

And I don't mean this as an attack on the NLT, either...though while GC itself hyped-up with those freaking-out about the TNIV and other neutralized versions (and the TNIV has some really serious tampering throughout), the NLT itself is degendered and tampered!

Your thoughts are appreciated.

[lone gone]

First: Almost thirty years ago the only translation used in the Ames church was the NRSV. No one from any other of the GC churches used anything else either. It was the textural norm for the movement.

I got so used to the words of that translation that anytime I read from that Bible I fell into the same doctrinal "rut".... almost like hearing the teaching over and over again. It took some time to get over it so that I could read scripture without the hidden meanings.

I use the New King James now.

Second: The same criticism of lack of knowledge about the relative merits of a particular translation can be leveled at almost any modern body of believers. NT Greek is not our mother-tongue. Since so many people have translated  it into what they believe it says ( sorry, that is my honest opinion) and we have so many ways of expressing the same thoughts, we'll always have these discussions.  

Additionally, many do not want to have these discussions. They simply rely on the judgement of someone else. The hear the translation being used by the preacher and use that same translation themselves. It's an intellectual short cut.

Third: Even before beleivers had translations of the Greek into Latin there were controversies as to what the words meant. Hence the various practices and doctrines that had to be decided on at the various church councils.

[EverAStudent]

For instance, some of the men being appointed to be Pastors in GC seem to read the NLT, NLT, NLT

Really?  I am sorry to hear that.  Back in the "old days" of GC the KJV and NASB seemed to be favored in the circles in which we ran.  Paraphrases were not well respected.

Nonetheless, paraphrases will give a good general understanding of the majority of texts of Scripture.  And they can be useful in sharing the gospel story.  

That said, never should parphrases be used to develop any doctrine or to justify any doctrine.  In such situations reliance on original language translations and study of the texts in the original language must be relied upon.  Too much can go wrong with an entire theology with even a simple word error.

Craig Blomberg, the translator of the NLT's gospel of Matthew, very contrary to the marketers of the version (who should be laughed out of town like snake-oil salesmen about how accurate and wonderful their paraphrase is), wrote,

I relished the chance to work on the NLT (New Living Translation) team to convert the LBP into a truly dynamic-equivalent translation, but I never recommend it to anyone except to supplement the reading of a more literal translation to generate freshness and new insights, unless they are kids or very poor adult readers. My sixteen- and twelve-year old daughters have been weaned on the NLT and have loved it, but both already on their own are now frequently turning to the NIV.

Very good quote.

[Linda]

The favorites at our GC church were the NLT and The Message. One year, they gave everyone an NLT One Year Bible. (I actually appreciated the idea behind this of stressing the importance of the Word).

The idea behind using those versions was that they were easier to understand and the goal was "to make Christ attractive" (as though the Savior of the World needs to be made to look good...but that's a whole different post) and how could Christ be made to look good if those pesky old awkward translations were used and not hip, modern traditions.

I think the GCLI teaching must not have much on Bible translations vs. paraphrases because the leaders don't seem to know the difference and I think they would be surprised to know that some of the translations they use have changed the literal Greek and Hebrew to make the Bible gender neutral.

We have been enjoying the ESV and the New King James.

[DrSam]

When I was in Ames we always used the NASB which is very true to the original... almost too literal thus making it very "wooden" and stiff in syntax. We then supplemented it with the NIV (upon some of my insistence since I knew some of the original translators from Seminary and knew about the work that went into it). I taught an elder on how to use the NASB for diagramming grammatically passages in order to do proper expository preaching. In my Gainesville, FL church plant we taught all our deacons how to do this from the NASB. I remember teaching the whole books of Galatians and Colossians right out of the Greek, word by word.

I often used direct Koine Greek translations and analysis of the tenses, syntax, and even Classical use in literature to expand the understanding of the meanings. I also referred to Brown, Driver, And Briggs for lexical understanding of Hebrew phrases when in the Old Testament.

[lone gone]

I'll correct myself. It was the NASB,  not the NRSV that was used. all else is the same.

[theresearchpersona]

The point, though, is that these men who're supposed to be pastors couldn't even answer questions about the tools they were using, and that they'd resort to trickery (or in some cases dodge this as unimportant) to make it seem otherwise; unfortunately the younger ones are also picking-up and adopting these tricks for knowing no better. I was told by some of them how happy they were they were told they didn't have to learn Greek: I found they're more useful in being idea-mean than teachers of the word; a dangerous place since it makes them usurpers against God of His flock.

[MidnightRider]

Texas, early 1980s, it was NASB. Most (all?) of the Scripture songs we sang were from the NASB.

NIV was fairly popular, too, but not "official".

Nowadays I am NKJV user.

[AgathaL'Orange]

These days I read many versions depending on which one is closest to me!  The difference is I try to read the word through the framework of a historical interpretation.  That seems to help keep me from going out an a limb.