What Bible Do Lutherans Use? Is It Better?

[StTherese]

What version of the Bible to Lutherans use?

 

[ctay]

I either like to use the KJV or the NIV

 

[seajoy]

I either like to use the KJV or the NIV

same here

 

[StTherese]

What about during the liturgy?

 

[DaRev]

What version of the Bible to Lutherans use?

I guess "officially" the Lutheran Church uses the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. All pastors are trained in the languages and use them for sermon preparation and teaching. It's best to use the original languages rather than simply rely on someone elses interpretations.

There is no "official" English translation used in the Lutheran church. Some of the different church bodies have preferences that are used in their lectionaries and educational materials.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod uses the English Standard Version for its liturgical lectionary and much of its newer educational materials. The NIV had been used in recent years, but the synod is moving away from that version.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America uses the New Revised Standard Version in its lectionary and educational publications.

Other versions used include the New King James, New American Standard, and others.

 

[StTherese]

Thanks for the replies!!!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The English Standard received very high praise from the LCMS's recent comparative report on Bible translations. As I recall, it's been approved for liturgical use and there's some talk of having a new ESV Lutheran Study Bible to replace the NIV version.

EDIT:

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod uses the English Standard Version for its liturgical lectionary and much of its newer educational materials. The NIV had been used in recent years, but the synod is moving away from that version

Yeah what he said.

One reason I (we?) feel the ESV is a superior translation is that, like the NIV, it is based on updated texts (unlike KJV), christological (unlike RSV), and not gender-neutral (unlike NRSV), but unlike the NIV, it is an 'essential literal' (word-for-word) translation that leans toward 'formal equivalence,' whereas the NIV is a 'dynamic equivalent' (thought-for-thought) leaning toward 'functional equivelance' that, unfortunately, embeds the translation's interpretation of a thought into the text.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

What version of the Bible to Lutherans use?

A big one with big letters and pretty pictures.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Rad, this is one of the creepiest posts I think I've ever seen from you..... *shudders*

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

That's why the moniker, "RAD".

 

[seajoy]

That's why the moniker, "RAD".

Do you need to talk, Radidio?....you are making me scared

 

[LilLamb219]

At least I'm glad he found his glasses (off-topic and referring to the Papal Bull thread!)

 

[seajoy]

At least I'm glad he found his glasses (off-topic and referring to the Papal Bull thread!)

yes, off topic...but I was thinkin' the same thing

 

[DaRev]

One reason I (we?) feel the ESV is a superior translation is that, like the NIV, it is based on updated texts (unlike KJV)

Actually, there are some good arguments towards the Ecclesiastical Text (that which is used by the KJV and the basis for the NKJV).

 

[ctay]

Rad I got my laugh for the day. LOL

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Actually, there are some good arguments towards the Ecclesiastical Text (that which is used by the KJV and the basis for the NKJV).

You mean the Textus Receptus?

You're right, there are some good arguments. I would actually like to see the English Standard be the Bible from which Lutherans are encouraged to study, but the King James be the one proclaimed in the reading (with the NKJV printed so the congregation can follow along). Just a thought- and personal preference.

That said, and as much as I love the King James language, I find the arguments for using the MT OT and older NT codecies more compelling. Then again, I am really no expert on the subject and am doing little more here than bowing to the majority scholarly opinion.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

yes, off topic...but I was thinkin' the same thing

Just having some fun Ang

 

[Edial]

The English Standard received very high praise from the LCMS's recent comparative report on Bible translations. As I recall, it's been approved for liturgical use and there's some talk of having a new ESV Lutheran Study Bible to replace the NIV version.

EDIT:

Yeah what he said.

One reason I (we?) feel the ESV is a superior translation is that, like the NIV, it is based on updated texts (unlike KJV), christological (unlike RSV), and not gender-neutral (unlike NRSV), but unlike the NIV, it is an 'essential literal' (word-for-word) translation that leans toward 'formal equivalence,' whereas the NIV is a 'dynamic equivalent' (thought-for-thought) leaning toward 'functional equivelance' that, unfortunately, embeds the translation's interpretation of a thought into the text.

Good post.
One note, NIV is not defined as thought-for-thought, paraphrases are (Good News, Message).
Dynamic equivalent is more like adapting Greek and Hebrew to English - a middle ground between the Literal and Paraphrases (thought-for-thought).

NIV uses lexicons in defining its' words, paraphrases do not.

I use NIV (have a software package), yet use Greek/Hebrew lexicons for study.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[RayJGentry]

I use ESV mostly. I bought my copy when they first came out with the translation a few years ago. I also use NIV and NRSV (NRSV since I'm ELCA). I prefer the ESV for everything I do, however I have a lot of notes in the NRSV from my Bible Class at Luther College, so I pull it out once in a while.

 

[synger]

A big one with big letters and pretty pictures.

Like this one?

When I was visiting my father for his 85th birthday bash, he got out the family Bible. It's a huge old Luther Bible. None of us can read German anymore, of course, but it's always so wonderful to look at and hold. And it's huge and HEAVY.