Scriptural References In Church Documents

[Wynteriii]

I was looking through some of my church's documents and found a document that was/is handed to potential new members. I've seen it before but did not worry about what I see now on it. The article gives a brief statement of faith and what we expect from of the church. Each statement is backed up with Scripture. However, the verses are taken from the Good News Translation, Phillips Translation, and Living Bible. The person who was examining the papers with me felt a need to change it, I think I agree.

How about you, would you want to have the most literal translation one can find? At least not have paraphrases?

 

[KMK]

Yes.

 

[fogmi]

Wynter, I would agree as well. The NLT, Good News Translation, and Philips are not very good translations. I firmly believe we need to glorify God in the translations we use of the Bible. These translations, in my opinion, would not bring full glory to God since they tend to distort and pervert the Word of God. If one were going to lean toward a modern translation I would recommend the ESV. As for me, I would use NKJV, KJV, or the Geneva Bible (1599). This is my opinion only and I hope it helps you out. Blessings and peace in Jesus name!!

 

[Jack K]

Good News Translation, Phillips Translation, and Living Bible

Those are all paraphrase or paraphrase-ish translations—and old translations, to boot. The publishers of those translations don't even use them anymore. They have newer, and better, translations today. So no matter anyone's preferred translations, those are clearly due for replacing.

I would, however, be careful about the bent toward pursuing the "most literal translation one can find." What's "most literal" is always up for interpretation. And some ways of defining "most literal" end up giving you a translation that really ought to be labelled "most awkward." For instance, you could take the English text from a Greek-English parallel Bible and end with something that is, in one sense, "most literal"—but it'd hardly be readable. We are blessed with a number of solid translations to chose from. Don't get too concerned if the one your church ends up using isn't the one someone once told you is "most literal."

 

[jwithnell]

NASB would give you the most literal translation. NIV would give you a reasonable translation that is perhaps more accessible for an audience that may well include those with no background in the scripture.

 

[Jake]

Wynter,

What is the translation used in expositing and teaching?

It sounds like it is an older document that needs to be updated, as these translations are hard to even find in print anymore. It would be more a place of concern if newer translations of similar translation philosophy were still in use for the teaching of the Word.

 

[Wynteriii]

1. What is the translation used in expositing and teaching?

Various translations, the pastor does not limit himself to one.

I'm thinking about starting a forum post on which text (TR or Alexandrian) you guys find to be the most accurate.

 

[Jake]

1. What is the translation used in expositing and teaching?

Various translations, the pastor does not limit himself to one.

I'm thinking about starting a forum post on which text (TR or Alexandrian) you guys find to be the most accurate.

I think it's a major problem when exposition is done from a more paraphrasic translation, but I think that it can be appropriate in some circumstances to use a paraphrase to make a point clear, much in the same way as putting a verse into your own words is sometimes appropriate.

Also, there is a *lot* of discussion about TR, MT, and CT.. best text, best translation, how each conforms to the confessions... just do some searching.

 

[thbslawson]

Would definitely change those references. My suggestion would be to whatever translation the sermon is typically preached from.

 

[Edward]

NIV would give you a reasonable translation that is perhaps more accessible for an audience that may well include those with no background in the scripture.

Except that the NIV should never be promoted for those new to scripture.