What verses do you have, brother?

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]

...this new translation.  I hope I don't evoke controversy here, but they were saying that major truths were being left out because it was more egalitarian.  GCM did not like that.

Over yrs later, ... the assistant manager said she used it in her personal devotions.  ... I hear it might be the closest the greek translation according to somebody in my church's Bible School.

Steelperson,
Controversy?? On this list?! Who would have ever expected it?!  

Not sure what translation you are talking about. But the fact that GCM disliked it does not make it bad. The fact that the saintly assistant manager liked it does not make it good. And I would not uncritically accept the opinion of an unidentified person (the receptionist or the janitor, perhaps?) at an unidentified (Vacation?) Bible School.

I bought a Today's New Internation Version Bible about 2 yrs ago.  It is more indepth than the Message where at least one Sunday Sermon came out while at the GCM.  I love Today's New International Version because it includes brothers and sisters. Nothing is missing out of this Bible.  Some of the major leaders in GCM might have a cow.  One famous leader was having a cow in GCM.  On the other hand, my church has an evening Bible School where people from my church and other churches in the area attend.  At least GCM elder has gone to this Bible School.

Nothing is missing from this version of the Bible contrary to what leaders were leading people in GCM to believe.

well..

The TNIV does have some issues, let's say that...where the original NIV translators endeavored to show the harmony of the author, the TNIV seems to systematically go through and change anything it can against that: even when it's wrong.

It also skews "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 (and contrary to popular reading and popular academia "almah" is more suitable to express "virgin" than "betulah"...and I've learned this...from Jews and Rabbis, not Christians! I'm slowly compiling this kind of information and also that of academics on this very frowned-upon side of the story! {wish me grace}).

Then there's issue with the fact that the IBS promised (in writing) never to release it ever period in America...and they broke their word and did so anyway.

Those things make me think...I personally steer well clear of the TNIV.

Oh, and "brothers and sisters" doesn't, in fact, render "adelphoi" correctly: it does, (1) signifiy "brothers" (male only) and (2) though it may "include" both sexes...men are mainly the ones addressed in scripture and it is highly significant, it is done for a reason; just as in the temple it was they who approached, and the same reason is behind that Paul says he wills that "men" do this: "Therefore I will** the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension" (1 Tim 2:. And I point-out that "men" in that verse is "aner", meaning it is not the generic-masculine (anthropos, such as the one used in 1 Tim 2:1), but specifically this word is of men only. Also I say this since I have no problem or allegiance to anyone or political-correctness etc. to bow to except God and His Word: so that I do not mean to offend anyone, but I do say it; publicly too, (clarifying just in case).

And if anyone might be offended at thinking this is belittling or something, I'd like to point-out something for you in Genesis when God says:

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

The "help meet" (KJV here) is not a mistake or screw-up (vs. the NASB {the other quotes} or NKJV or NIV). The Hebrew is not "a helper suitable/able/etc.". It is one word, a noun, and it embodies both the idea of "helper" (she is made by God for man...and both are in His image, but the man is His glory, while the woman is the man's), and of "strength/ability/etc.", i.e. she's strong enough to help the man (whether or not she's the "weaker vessel" {1 Peter 3:7}...she is still pretty dang strong!). The "meet" is an old use of the english word meaning "capable/able/enough/worthy{though not, actually, in the sense it would be offensive in use today, but in proper}/etc.". So the "help meet" rendering, though antiquated, preserves the whole noun and embodies it correctly (vs. actual demeaning of the force and strength of the original through splitting-up the word and reducing the other idea to an adjective!), though I wouldn't really go-around blaming people for modernizing this particular feature: I wouldn't...would rather exegete it for the gal's edification (and there's a lot to be said from it...though not poured into it).

The other TNIV issue I find is...that through "neutralizing" it's often forced to incorrectly translate: many many times. This is sad to me: it's rebellion to put egalitarian ideology over fidelity to the word, but alas, they did.

At any rate, if that's the Bible you've got: I'm not going to discourage you...I would if it were the Message, Living Bible, and the NLT somewhate, and I'm really not particular fond of dynamic equivalence (to be upfront) since the impetus behind them is for ease of understanding for unbelievers (which turns out...even DE doesn't actually help them) and the justification offered is that "it's the thoughts that were inspired...and were then penned in men's words; it's the thoughts that are inspired, not the words", however this contradicts Paul himself:

"which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words." - 1 Cor 2:13

!!!

"For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." - 1 Cor 11:7

Only blessings (and edification) meant for you anyways: sorry about the poor treatment you received...still grappling and dealing with questions/issues here too.

**p.s. the NASB here puts "want", and its progenitor version put "desire", but the idea isn't so soft, it's properly "will", but english speakers are often very very confused about "will" to express the future vs. to express "determination"; for this translations try to make it easier with substitutions, and while it's good to follow a principle of making your translations plain as possible, this nevertheless needs not be done when a "proper" translations is required in order not to mislead even the informed reader: whereas "want/desire" might give the impression of a soft "would like" vs. "I DETERMINE/WILL"; this is where even connotation does come into play...quite annoying really. Just wanted to give a heads-up for why "will" is there.

and again: if anyone has some [scriptural] thoughts on translations etc. I'd really like to know: but scriptural scriptural scriptural: the Bibles one of the only books I know that gives threats/promises to those who handle it according to how they do...and translators should be following these guidelines more than "philosophy of translation" by guys like Eugene Nida (somewhat the "father" of the modern move toward dynamic equivalence) etc. (although that's not to say a guy like Mr. Nida don't have insights and things to day...it's just those things need to be subjected to scripture).

[maranatha]

(bump)

[Linda]

Oddly enough, at our church the Bible of preference was the NLT. In fact, in the late '90's they gave a copy of the One Year NLT to everyone in a small group as part of a Bible reading program. They also quoted from the Message a lot.

The idea was that those pesky older translations were antiquated and hard to understand so you should get a copy that makes sense to you. One obvious thing missing from this, of course, is the difference between a translation and a  paraphrase. I believe that the reason they choose these books is somewhat due to lack of formal training. I'm pretty sure that seminary trained pastors are familiar with the difference between a translation and a paraphrase and a conservative Bible teacher would not preach from a paraphrase.

I have been using the ESV mostly and also the NKJV. They are not hard to understand at all!

[steelgirl]

Oddly enough, at our church the Bible of preference was the NLT. In fact, in the late '90's they gave a copy of the One Year NLT to everyone in a small group as part of a Bible reading program. They also quoted from the Message a lot.

The idea was that those pesky older translations were antiquated and hard to understand so you should get a copy that makes sense to you. One obvious thing missing from this, of course, is the difference between a translation and a  paraphrase. I believe that the reason they choose these books is somewhat due to lack of formal training. I'm pretty sure that seminary trained pastors are familiar with the difference between a translation and a paraphrase and a conservative Bible teacher would not preach from a paraphrase.

I have been using the ESV mostly and also the NKJV. They are not hard to understand at all![/quote

The last 10 months to 1 year I was in GCM I did not feel I was really being fed.

[Linda]

I just reread my last comment and realized I made it sound like the NLT was a paraphrase. I understand that it is a translation (hence the T after the NL), but I think it is a bad translation!

The Message was the paraphrase I was referring to.

Also, in spite of the fact that they chose the NLT, I thought that one of the best things our church did was to hand out a One Year Bible to everyone along with a journal and encourage everyone to read the Bible everyday and jot down one verse that came to mind. I didn't mean to be critical of the idea of passing out Bibles. What I questioned was why very conservative men would choose the NLT which in my opinion is a more liberal (Biblically, not politically) translation. I assume it was because they had never learned about the difference in translations.

[steelgirl]

I just reread my last comment and realized I made it sound like the NLT was a paraphrase. I understand that it is a translation (hence the T after the NL), but I think it is a bad translation!

The Message was the paraphrase I was referring to.

Also, in spite of the fact that they chose the NLT, I thought that one of the best things our church did was to hand out a One Year Bible to everyone along with a journal and encourage everyone to read the Bible everyday and jot down one verse that came to mind. I didn't mean to be critical of the idea of passing out Bibles. What I questioned was why very conservative men would choose the NLT which in my opinion is a more liberal (Biblically, not politically) translation. I assume it was because they had never learned about the difference in translations.

I would not call the TNIV or TNLT a liberal translation.  I use the TNIV but I also have a TNLT and an NIV.   The message was where some of the sermons were coming out of at the end, not very meaty.  Why would you say that the TNLT is Biblically liberal?

[AgathaL'Orange]

Only thing about passing out the Bibles was, then they asked you to raise your hands if you'd read it that day (at least at the teen conference).  Another little bit of pressure from Marky Mark.

[Linda]

I consider the NLT a "liberal" translation because it is my understanding that the translators have made it gender neutral. If the word in Hebrew is "mankind" or "man" I don't think they should change it to "humankind" or "person". That is putting a spin on the word that wasn't there. That's why I won't use a gender neutral Bible...okay, sometimes I read a gender neutral Bible, but when I do I keep that in mind. As a woman, I am strong enough to take the Word in its most literal form. It is an insult to me to change it so I won't be offended...you know, "The gals get mad if we say "man" so let's translate this as "person".

I do think it's ironic that our church chose a gender neutral translation. I assumed they had no idea it was gender neutral and who wants to make it look like you are against passing out Bibles and reading them, so we didn't say anything.

Also, Aggie, how true about the pressure/competition that comes from suggesting a Bible reading plan. Now that you mention it, I remember times when they asked who had done their reading for the day. I remember not raising my hand even though I'd done it that day because I thought it was an unwise thing to do that turned it into a guilt trip or a Bible reading competition. Also, what if you are in Romans and the Holy Spirit prompted you to read Ezra that day? Do you go with the plan so you can check it off the "to do" list and raise your hand if asked?

The bottom line for me is, having people read the Bible is a good thing and encouraging each other to do it is a good thing, competing with each other to do it is a bad thing.

[theresearchpersona]

The last 10 months to 1 year I was in GCM I did not feel I was really being fed.

Same here. Effectively I never did...always wondering "what???".

[EverAStudent]

How can one feel geunuinely "fed" when one subsits on a constant diet of milk?  By that I mean, every sermon was about: 1) evangelism, or 2) quiet times, or 3) support your elders (hint hint hint).

[steelgirl]

I consider the NLT a "liberal" translation because it is my understanding that the translators have made it gender neutral. If the word in Hebrew is "mankind" or "man" I don't think they should change it to "humankind" or "person". That is putting a spin on the word that wasn't there. That's why I won't use a gender neutral Bible...okay, sometimes I read a gender neutral Bible, but when I do I keep that in mind. As a woman, I am strong enough to take the Word in its most literal form. It is an insult to me to change it so I won't be offended...you know, "The gals get mad if we say "man" so let's translate this as "person".

I do think it's ironic that our church chose a gender neutral translation. I assumed they had no idea it was gender neutral and who wants to make it look like you are against passing out Bibles and reading them, so we didn't say anything.

Also, Aggie, how true about the pressure/competition that comes from suggesting a Bible reading plan. Now that you mention it, I remember times when they asked who had done their reading for the day. I remember not raising my hand even though I'd done it that day because I thought it was an unwise thing to do that turned it into a guilt trip or a Bible reading competition. Also, what if you are in Romans and the Holy Spirit prompted you to read Ezra that day? Do you go with the plan so you can check it off the "to do" list and raise your hand if asked?

The bottom line for me is, having people read the Bible is a good thing and encouraging each other to do it is a good thing, competing with each other to do it is a bad thing.

I prefer reading my gender neutral versions.

[Linda]

I prefer reading my gender neutral versions.

I just wanted to clarify that my point wasn't "Oh, no, it's gender neutral!" My point was that in some translations the translators know the meaning of the word and change it. "Men" to "people" when all scholars agree that the literal Hebrew is "men." At least one translation changes "David's mighty men" to "David's mighty warriors." Yes, they were warriors, but the word is not "warriors" the word is "men."

Also, I wasn't trying to make a general point and tell everyone what translation to use, I was trying to make some points about our GC church.

First, I never had any indication that the pastors ever knew the difference between the translations and paraphrases they used. I never heard any teaching on what to look for in choosing a translation, or on how faithful a translation is to the oldest manuscripts available, or why that mattered. They seemed to think that a person should pick the one that they think is easiest to understand (which kind of misses the point that the Holy Spirit gives us understanding).

Second, in light of the fact that GC pastors are complementarians (as am I) and not egalitarians (and I'm totally fine with people being that, I just probably personally won't choose a church with that view, but you go where the Lord leads and don't mind me), I found it ironic that they chose to distribute a translation that purposefully set about to change the meanings of words to make them more politically correct rather than accurate to the translation.

Again, my point was not to critique Bible translations. It was merely to point out the irony of GC choosing some Bibles over others and also to point out that I think maybe the reason for this had to do with some "formal" education that was missing...you know, "Bible Translations 101".  

As an unrelated point, I think they also missed "Church History 101"! But, it's never too late to learn!

[AgathaL'Orange]

Well, I just listened to a GC sermon last night where he said, Melchesidec WAS the pre-incarnate Jesus.  I thought it was pretty accepted the Mel. was a type of Christ not actually Christ himself.  Not like I know any better, but a pastor should have a little backup for what he says in a sermon.  Also he admitted that he had never heard of tithing when he became a pastor.  Can you believe that?  A pastor who had NEVER heard of TITHING?  I don't think these men for the most part have any idea!  They are just teaching what has been taught to them, almost like an early form of primitive Christianity. They are completely ignoring the Christian heritage that has gotten us this far!

Versions of the Bible, lack of basic church doctrines, and heavy handed leadership focusing on about 10 Christian topics (or less).  I am sitting here thinking to myself... either I was completely blinded, completely stupid, completely brainwashed, or just had COMPLETELY different priorities.

[theresearchpersona]

I prefer reading my gender neutral versions.

I just wanted to clarify that my point wasn't "Oh, no, it's gender neutral!" My point was that in some translations the translators know the meaning of the word and change it. "Men" to "people" when all scholars agree that the literal Hebrew is "men." At least one translation changes "David's mighty men" to "David's mighty warriors." Yes, they were warriors, but the word is not "warriors" the word is "men."

Also, I wasn't trying to make a general point and tell everyone what translation to use, I was trying to make some points about our GC church.

First, I never had any indication that the pastors ever knew the difference between the translations and paraphrases they used. I never heard any teaching on what to look for in choosing a translation, or on how faithful a translation is to the oldest manuscripts available, or why that mattered. They seemed to think that a person should pick the one that they think is easiest to understand (which kind of misses the point that the Holy Spirit gives us understanding).

Second, in light of the fact that GC pastors are complementarians (as am I) and not egalitarians (and I'm totally fine with people being that, I just probably personally won't choose a church with that view, but you go where the Lord leads and don't mind me), I found it ironic that they chose to distribute a translation that purposefully set about to change the meanings of words to make them more politically correct rather than accurate to the translation.

Again, my point was not to critique Bible translations. It was merely to point out the irony of GC choosing some Bibles over others and also to point out that I think maybe the reason for this had to do with some "formal" education that was missing...you know, "Bible Translations 101".  

As an unrelated point, I think they also missed "Church History 101"! But, it's never too late to learn!

Just a note...that manuscripts are the oldest doesn't mean they are the most reliable; in principle text critics acknowledge this; in practice many act as if it were the converse (did I just use that right?); it's something that still grossly mars text-criticial work (besides passive acceptance of other critics' loose or incorrect textual descriptions/conclusions without re-examining those things). I've kind-of considered learning about and entering the text-critical field, however these days it's so dominated by some strains of thought which are just appalling, and really one should be very educated about history, theology, and linguistics: which could take a while; so I guess I'll wait.

At any rate, our Bibles are pretty darn reliable, so I'm not too worried either. : )

As for gender-neutral: if substituting "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" was all (which even an NRSV translator remarked is incorrect and forces a modern agenda on a text to which it is foreign regarding the minority committees tyrannical and arbitrary flattening of the majority's work in that version) something like the TNIV wouldn't be in half-bad shape; but it is much more extensive than that, and very often pluralizing to avoid the singulars ("male" terms) does anything from destroying the meaning entirely of a passage, to outright removing Christological references to Christ in the OT: and they do this quite amateurishly--but they're not amateurs so I would have to incline toward their competence, and therefore suggest it was deliberate.

THAT, besides the fact that the Bible Society that published it had promised (in writing) that it would never EVER publish a gender-neutralized version, is why people oppose the TNIV, among other things. It also pulls a lot of low punches to try to sell: fixes some of the very numerous errors of the NIV (acknowledged by all) and yet then won't do that in the NIV--you have to buy the TNIV, wherein it creates its own agenda-motivated rather than translationally-motivated mutilations.

I would not say to necessarily abandon it, but to use it comparatively rather than standing alone: and to give another decent version the benefit of the doubt when they conflict. The best versions of study today are undoubtedly the NKJV, NASB, and ESV: the latter actually having numerous high points, too, with a few low ones as well.

But I don't think it unwise, as so many teachers have often exhorted, to say that since they're translations, using several critically is a wise move.

As to versions, you guys aren't incorrect about the seeming utter ineptitude and total void of knowledge about versions and translations amongst GC leadership: they passively accepted whatever endorsements and materials that came their way; not on just one occassion did I witness Tom Short totally caught with his pants down by unbelievers who knew more about versions than he did--and who called his bluff when he tried to pull cheap tricks; and then he acted like a sincere but naive simpleton who knew better than they as if they were just scoffers rather than recognizing someone who was trying to pull one over their head: and not on one occasion did any of those guys not appreciate it if I or another who knew better came over and talked to them, answering their questions, and making those accommodations for them.

It's also funny how more GC leadership and pastors seem to have versions like the NLT: some of the translators of which gave the warning that they did not recommend it for use or study by ANYBODY except youth and very poor readers.

Grace.

[exshep]

I have not read the responses.  It is an occupational hazard in GC churches.  I listened to hours of 2006  Faithwalkers.  There were times I wanted to pull my hair out, "What has this scripture have to do with the sermon text".


It does lend credence to the argument that  GC suffers from lack of formal seminary training.