Home > Bible/Bible Translation/Bible Publishing, Biblical Studies > It’s Hard to Believe That the WELS is Actually Willing to Endorse the NIV 2011 For Use in Its Congregations

It’s Hard to Believe That the WELS is Actually Willing to Endorse the NIV 2011 For Use in Its Congregations

June 27th, 2011
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

I remain utterly flabbergasted that a committee appointed by the WELS to study the NIV 2011 is actually willing to recommend its use in WELS’ congregations. The WELS prides itself on its fidelity to the Biblical text and careful attention to the original languages, and rightly so. That is what makes it all the more shocking that the committee appointed to study this issue is recommending the NIV 2011 for use in the WELS. I’ve read the committee’s report and frankly it is sloppy and woefully insufficient and simply brushes aside the very, very serious problems with the NIV 2011. I was interested to read today the full report on the action taken by the Southern Baptist Convention about the NIV 2011. I hope the WELS rejects the recommendation of is committee and also is able to declare the NIV 2011 to be an inaccurate translation.

Patterson, Mohler endorse resolution critical of NIV ’11
Posted on Jun 29, 2011 | by Michael Foust

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Two prominent Southern Baptist leaders have endorsed a resolution passed by convention messengers that calls the New International Version (NIV) 2011 Bible an “inaccurate translation” the SBC cannot recommend.

Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, say messengers were right to pass the resolution and take a stand against what the language calls “gender neutral methods of translation.” Mohler, though, did say he regrets the resolution addresses LifeWay stores so directly.

The controversy over a newer version of the NIV dates back to 2002 when messengers passed a resolution criticizing the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) Bible, which also employed a gender-neutral philosophy of translation for pronouns. After receiving criticism from James Dobson, Southern Baptist leaders and other evangelical leaders, the TNIV never gained widespread usage and finally was discontinued.

At issue in both cases are pronouns for humanity, not pronouns for God.

The NIV 2011 is an updated translation to both the TNIV and the NIV 1984. It maintains 75 percent of the gender-neutral changes found in the TNIV, according to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a Louisville, Ky.-based group that supports a complementarian position on manhood and womanhood. CBMW did acknowledge that the NIV 2011 had “numerous commendable improvements” from the NIV 1984 but that the newest translation still had problems from CBMW’s perspective. The NIV 2011, CBMW contends, changes the meaning of the text in numerous verses, and by changing singular pronouns to plural pronouns, “removes the emphasis on an individual, personal relationship with God and on specific individual responsibility for one’s choices and actions.”

The NIV’s popularity — it’s the bestselling Bible translation — is a driving force behind the controversy. Zondervan, the North American publisher, is discontinuing the NIV 1984 and replacing it with the NIV 2011.

The fact that the resolution on the NIV 2011 was debated at all at the SBC annual meeting was somewhat of a surprise, because the Resolutions Committee, the body charged to recommend resolutions to the convention, had declined it. Instead, messenger Tim Overton asked from the floor that his resolution — previously submitted to the committee as required — be brought forward, and messengers voted to consider it by the required margin of at least 2-to-1. After a brief debate, it passed overwhelmingly by a show of ballots, receiving opposition from only a few dozen messengers out of the 4,800 who were registered.

CBMW’s lengthy NIV 2011 evaluation, released in May, helped give the resolution momentum.

“The adoption of a resolution on the NIV offered from the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention has three major points of significance,” Patterson told Baptist Press in a statement. “First, it demonstrates anew that a grass-roots response on the part of Southern Baptists is still a unique feature of the DNA of the Convention, something that we must never loose. Second, the adoption of this resolution demonstrates the continuing concern that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists have for gender-neutral translations of the Scripture and the questionable advertising techniques of the NIV marketing program. In fact, Southern Baptists will continue to reject all agenda-driven translations of Holy Scripture.

“Third,” Patterson continued, “this action from the floor of the Convention should send a message to all Southern Baptist Convention institutions and agencies that we are expected to pursue our ministries out of conviction rather than out of concern for profitability.”

Focus on the Family also has quietly taken a stance on the NIV 2011. Its website lists a series of Bibles it recommends, specifically stating the “New International Version 1984 Edition” as an acceptable translation. An asterisk guides readers to the bottom of the list, where it says, “For a preliminary analysis of the NIV 2011 Edition, see the CBMW’s review.” The link takes readers to a November article where CBMW said it “cannot commend” the updated translation.

Mohler said he thought the Resolutions Committee and messengers were both right.

“The Committee on Resolutions had good reason for deciding that this was not the most timely opportunity to bring a resolution on the NIV,” Mohler told Baptist Press. “I would not second guess the Resolutions Committee, and I certainly know their conviction on these issues. But once that resolution was brought to the floor, Southern Baptists simply had to support it, and support it overwhelmingly, on the basis of the fact that what it said was patently true and did reflect the established concerns of Southern Baptists.”

The resolution, Mohler said, reflected his concerns “related to the gender issue and specifically related to the linkage between a verbal plenary understanding of inspiration and the importance of an accurate and formal translation.”

The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration holds that all the words of Scripture are God’s words and that all Scripture is authoritative.

Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation — which translated the NIV 2011 — previously told Baptist Press there was no agenda in the translation process other than to render a Bible into more contemporary language. The committee did, he said, make significant changes following the controversy over the TNIV.

“Our gender decisions were made on the basis of very careful and significant research … and the decisions we’ve made about gender have no motivation of not offending people,” he told Baptist Press, explaining that the committee used the Collins Bank of English, a database of 4.4 billion words showing how people are speaking and writing. “The motivation, rather, is to communicate clearly to people what we think arguably is contemporary English,” Moo said.

He added, “Where, in our view, the original text is intending to be inclusive then we feel our job as translators is to figure out what is the best way to make that inclusive point in modern English.

“Where the original text is exclusive, on the other hand, then our task as translators is to choose the appropriate contemporary exclusive English construction that conveys the meaning of the original. That is not to say that all of the decisions are easy ones. There are a lot of texts which are very tough to make that decision about. Of course, we struggle with those, and good scholars can come to different opinions on some of them.”

An example of the NIV 2011′s gender-neutral language is John 14:23, which reads, “Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” The NIV 1984 read, “Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Changing “him” to “them,” CBMW says, removes the emphasis on an individual, personal relationship with Christ. Another example is 1 Samuel 18:2, which the 2011 NIV rendered, “From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family.” The 1984 NIV translated it ” … let him return home to his father’s house” — a translation CBMW said emphasizes the role of fathers in Israelite society.

Still another verse of concern for CBMW is 1 Timothy 2:12, a passage dealing with church roles. The controversy actually does not pertain to pronouns. The NIV 2011 rendered it, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” The NIV 1984 translated it “have authority.” No other major modern English translation translates it as “assume.” The verse, CBMW said, takes sides in the debate over female pastors. “As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV,” CBMW said, “the debate over women’s roles in that church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, ‘I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders,’”

Said Mohler, “It’s very healthy that the convention sends a very clear signal that we take the issue of faithfulness in Bible translation and accuracy in Bible translation to be of utmost, nonnegotiable importance.”

Overton, pastor of Halteman Village Baptist Church in Muncie, Ind., said “Southern Baptists have a long and proud history of speaking biblical truth to important issues.” Overton used the 2002 resolution as the basis for writing the 2011 resolution.

“Biblica [the worldwide publisher] and Zondervan made serious errors when they chose to insert a gender-neutral philosophy of translation into the 2011 New International Version,” Overton told BP. “This flawed translation undermines verbal plenary inspiration, which is a core belief of Southern Baptists. Every single word in Scripture, including pronouns, is inspired by God. When the bestselling NIV Bible disregards the smallest ‘jot or tittle’ of Scripture, Southern Baptists have an obligation to make a firm stand upon God’s inerrant Holy Bible.”

Among the resolution’s highlights, it says the NIV 2011 erases “gender-specific details which appear in the original language” and “has gone beyond acceptable translation standards.” It cites CBMW’s 75 percent statistic and says messengers “cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.”

It also says messengers “respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores.”

“It has been a part of established SBC tradition not to address the convention’s entities by means of resolution, and this is a good policy,” Mohler said. “I do regret that this resolution addresses LifeWay so directly. This puts LifeWay in an almost impossible position. The very significant complications now handed to LifeWay include the fact that the NIV is not the only English Bible to involve many of the same translation issues. The resolution rightly addresses many translation concerns, but the NIV is hardly alone with respect to those issues. Furthermore, removing a specific Bible translation is no simple matter.”

As an example, Mohler cited B&H’s popular New American Commentary series, which is based on the NIV translation.

“This is true across the board for many evangelical commentary series, and for a host of devotional works as well,” Mohler said.

LifeWay released a statement after the resolution passed, stating, “LifeWay Christian Resources has received the resolution. Our first step is to involve our board of trustees since they are the representative body Southern Baptists have elected to oversee our work.”

Other gender-neutral translations are the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (NCV) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).
Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. To read Baptist Press’ overview story of the NIV controversy, which includes quotes from Douglas Moo, who chaired the committee that translated it, visit www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35458

Read CBMW’s evaluation of the NIV 2011:


Read the Committee on Bible Translators’ statement on the translation philosophy:


If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  1. June 29th, 2011 at 18:40 | #1

    I spoke with my WELS pastor father-in-law about this a couple weeks ago. He expects the resolution to pass without too much problems. From what he tells me and from what you write, the committee is willing to overlook the problems.

  2. Karen Keil
    June 29th, 2011 at 20:13 | #3

    The Southern Baptists with their zeal for biblical fidelity in this matter on the NIV 2011 put the WELS to shame. The WELS would be better off adopting the Holman Christian Standard Bible from Holman Bible Publishers to replace the 1984 NIV. The HCSB is more literal and faithful to the text than the NIV 2011 or even the NIV 1984. Or simply adopt the The Lutheran Study Bible as their Bible.

    Perhaps if the resolution is passed in the WELS, it might be a strident wake-up call to many WELS members.

  3. Terry Maher (Past Elder)
    June 29th, 2011 at 20:34 | #4

    It is indeed. But given WELS, entirely predictable. Which is part of why I am LCMS now. Even in my WELS days, there were those in WELS who wondered why the original NIV gained its place there. Now this. But in addition to all mentioned in the article above, part of the ugly truth is WELS will never ever accept the ESV, because LCMS scholars were involved in its preparation.

  4. Pastor Michael Sullivan
    June 29th, 2011 at 21:23 | #5

    There are some grass roots efforts to counter the Translation Evaluation Commitee’s proposal. The South Central District proposed a memorial that the NIV not be adopted until other translations have been properly considered. Some eye-opening comparisons have also been emailed around the Synod, as well as power-point presentation for the laity showing why we should have reservations concerning the new NIV.

    It is an uphill battle for us opposed to adopting the new NIV, but it isn’t over until the fat lady sings.

    If you want to read something truly sad, read the wretched editorial John Braun wrote in the July, 2011 edition of the Forward in Christ on page 34, entitle: “A Better Way”. It seems as if John (a member of Translation Evaluation Committee member) is trying to squash all discussion against the NIV.

    • June 29th, 2011 at 21:39 | #6

      Very interesting, I certainly am not interested in having Braun involved in any future publishing projects with CPH, in light of his extremely poor judgement with the NIV2011 issue. The Southern Baptists have put the WELS to shame on this issue.

  5. Jack K
    June 30th, 2011 at 04:02 | #7

    One wonders where the ELS, in fellowship with WELS, falls on this issue.

  6. Robert Franck
    June 30th, 2011 at 09:30 | #8

    I’m surprised at how many pastors, even LCMS pastors, don’t get the important translation issues that are at stake, with the NIV 2011 and with other texts. I think only a couple of pastors in my circuit were even AWARE that the NIV was changing. One was using NIV 2011 (from a web site) without even knowing it was the changed NIV.

    I was at a concert last night that was held in an ELCA building. As part of the concert, the audience was encouraged to sing, “Earth and All Stars” from the red “Evangelical Lutheran Worship” hymnal. Something seemed wrong with the text. It took a minute before I realized the words had been changed so that the hymn no longer referred to God as “He” or “Him.”

    • June 30th, 2011 at 09:43 | #9

      I know…it is really frustrating to me too Rob. Similarly, how many LCMS pastors have simply “bought into” the Kolb/Wengert edition of the Book of Concord, which has severe problems. And now that Timothy Wengert has become a leader in championing the nonsensical “bound conscience” rhetoric that was used to push through the ELCA’s position on homosexuality, we should be even much more leery of using this gender-neutered translation of the BOC, which opens the door wide for those who advocate for women pastors and homosexual pastors.

  7. T Rank
    June 30th, 2011 at 09:48 | #10

    RE the ELS and the NIV
    The ELS does not take any official stand for a specific translation. The most used translations in the ELS are the NIV(84) and the NKJV. The new NIV is not getting any great reviews from the ELS.

    In WELS one of the main driving forces for a rather quick decision on translations is the fact that NPH does need a rather large lead time for the preparation of various instructional materials (SS, etc.). Therefore they really are up against a timeline that doesn’t work well with waiting another two years for a decision.

    The HCSB was mentioned as an alternative. It is better than the new NIV. But I don’t think it stands up well against the ESV. However, part of the issue with that is the degree to which one thinks a certain formality is necessary for the ordinary use of a translation. In my opinion, such formality is what makes the ESV (and the NKJV) better translations, especially for use in the public services and teaching of the church. For others it is a drawback and they prefer the more informal HCSB. There are other issues with the HCSB, too.

    • June 30th, 2011 at 10:03 | #11

      I hope the ELS will, if the WELS decided to embrace the NIV2011, speak out publicly against that decision.

  8. June 30th, 2011 at 10:10 | #12

    For those interested in what the WELS translation committee has actually said, pretty much all of the documents and articles they have produced can be found gathered at:


    The first item listed is the one most of you will probably be most interested in, the “Supplemental Report for the 2011 WELS Convention”. The editorial Pastor Sullivan references above has not appeared there yet, but will likely be linked there within a few days (as it is part of the July Forward in Christ) (I will mention that I strongly disagree with Pr. Sullivan’s characterization of the editorial.)

    I am not promoting the new NIV. But I’m not sure where so many are getting the impression that the WELS Translation Committee is, either. Perhaps it’s simply that the committee’s failure to condemn the new NIV in strong words as others have is being interpreted as a recommendation; maybe it’s that the sudden appearance of the new NIV late last year forced them to focus on that translation.

    What the committee has, in fact, stated is that they hope “the synod in convention will encourage and promote” discussions about translations, and which is appropriate for our synod to use. They also state in their report that “It is not expected that the convention will make a decision on the matter, since the study and discussion is just beginning” — and that they “would be happy if the convention would give guidance on the process”.

    What may perhaps have some in the WELS thinking that there is an attempt to force the new NIV through is the reference to a very real and practical problem in publishing: Those who hold the copyright for the “old” NIV (1984) will no longer allow it to be used in publishing after 2013, and waiting until the 2013 synod convention to make some decision on translations would put Northwestern Publishing House in something of a bind. The WELS Translation Committee, however, has *not* said, “The solution is for the 2011 convention to just go ahead and adopt the new NIV.”

    Whatever decision this year’s WELS Convention makes will likely disappoint or even anger some people — both inside and outside the synod. But I doubt that it will be a decision made without considerable discussion of the serious issues involved. And I pray that that discussion, regardless of its outcome, will demonstrate mutual love and respect for brothers even as it shows the utmost regard for the Word of Life.

    • June 30th, 2011 at 10:15 | #13

      Jeff, I’m well aware of the issues confronting publishers, but I think you are not really representing the committee’s actions accurately, the chairman of the committee is very much committed to seeing to it that the WELS embrace the NIV2011 and seems more than willing himself, personally, to simply turn a blind eye to the very serious problems with the NIV2011, and apparently wants the WELS to do the same. There are much better choices out there and it shocks me that any committee of the WELS would put the NIV2011 forward as a legitimate option.

  9. June 30th, 2011 at 10:17 | #14

    Jack K asked about the ELS, in which I am a pastor. The Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary and the ELS catechism edition both make use of the NKJV, as do many of our publications.
    It should be noted that in the case of WELS, as with ELS, we’re not talking about an official synod translation, but which translation the Publishing House will make use of for most of its materials. It is my prayer that the WELS South Central District’s resolution be considered and passed as a WELS resolution this summer, namely that much more thorough study be put into other options, and that NO decision be made in haste.

  10. T Rank
    June 30th, 2011 at 10:21 | #15

    Off topic, but you mentioned it Paul: the K/W BoC. I would love to see old synodical conference scholars do a new translation of the BoC. I think there are some very gifted translators among us (see the scholars who are doing the translations for the new editions of LW).

    • June 30th, 2011 at 10:25 | #16

      We’ve talked about. But, frankly, Tom the Concordia edition is quite good and accurate and I fail to understand why the K/W is being used by conservative Lutherans. It is not even giving our pastors and laity a genuinely accurate edition of the BOC, not to mention the horrendous translation problems in it/with it. It utterly baffles me.

  11. T Rank
    June 30th, 2011 at 10:22 | #17

    Actually, Tim, the 2001 ELS catechism changed to the NIV (sadly) from the NKJV.

  12. Pastor Michael Sullivan
    June 30th, 2011 at 10:38 | #18

    Brothers Jeff,

    John Braun wrote in the July FIC article: “I sense that most of the discussion is more like a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin than on how will a particular translation build the body of Christ.”

    Is that what you “sense” too?

    I wrote the following response to his article. (Please indulge me, Pastor McCain, to post it here, because I have a feeling it will not be printed in the August issue of FIC magazine):

    “I was extremely disappointed in Pastor John Braun’s article entitled: “A Better Way.” His article seemed to belittle the concerns some of us have regarding the new NIV. Pastor Braun said, “I just want to put Christ at the center of our own discussion.” And don’t we, who have legitimate concerns regarding the new NIV, want the same? It’s our high regard for Christ and messianic prophesy that gives us the greatest pause when considering the new NIV (eg. Psalm 8:4-6, and Hebrews 2:5-9). It’s our high regard for every article of faith that moves us to be concerned when the new NIV does not clearly present what God has written regarding the roles of men and women (eg. Acts 1:15-23 – especially verse 16). Every article of the Christian faith – whether it be creation, justification or the roles of men and women – is always about Christ. Therefore all our concerns, even when they seem to address a “minor” article of faith, are ultimately about Christ crucified and the clear proclamation of His whole Gospel to the world. Our concerns are legitimate, and not just “angel” and “pin” non-sense Braun falsely supposes. Claiming otherwise is being disingenuous. “

    • June 30th, 2011 at 10:44 | #19

      This is a rather classic tactic to derail concerns: make it seem that concerns are “trivial.” If Pastor Braun wants to “put Christ in the center of the discussion” he better be FAR more concerned about making sure the words that convey Christ to us are translated faithfully.

  13. Karen Keil
    June 30th, 2011 at 10:52 | #20

    @T Rank

    I agree that the HCSB has some issues along with less formality, including a problem with Matthew 16:19, which has a Baptist/”low church” slant (“already bound” and “already loosed” rather than “will be bound” and “will be loosed”). However, aside from very few instances like this, the translation is remarkably free of Baptist traces from beginning to end. If the WELS wanted a NIV-like translation, the HCSB would be a better choice.

    If they don’t want the ESV because of LCMS involvement with it, then an alternative is the NKJV.

    Zondervan has put out a parallel Bible with the KJV and NIV 2011, making it very easy to compare the differences. I have a copy of this.

  14. Matt
    June 30th, 2011 at 11:28 | #21

    Not to mention the fact that the debate over angels dancing on the head of a pin was not trivial at all – it was a debate over the theological and philosophical definitions of spirit vs body and had important implications on subjects such as the essence of man and the existence of the soul after death – basically any theological topic that involved the concept of spirit was affected. So also the debate over the translations of the Word of God is hardly trivial to anyone who is truly concerned about the reader understanding the fulness of what God said.

  15. June 30th, 2011 at 11:42 | #22

    Pastor McCain:

    You apparently have me at a disadvantage. My comments were based on the text of the committee’s published reports and other articles, as well as our district’s interactions with a committee member when he presented the report to our called workers earlier this month.

    It appears that you must, through other communications or interactions that I am not privy to, have independent knowledge that “the chairman of the committee is very much committed to seeing to it that the WELS embrace the NIV2011″. So it seems that my attempts to add some light to the discussion was not as helpful as I’d hoped.

    • June 30th, 2011 at 12:34 | #23

      I’m referring to Bauer’s highly dismissive remarks on this whole issue in your church body’s magazine. You might want to read the comments posted here about this, and/or over on my Facebook page. I am trying to find a nice way to say this, so take this in the spirit, but please wake up and smell the coffee on this. Your committee is selling the WELS a bill of goods and has done an awful job. The NIV2011 is an inaccurate and harmful translation. I pray the WELS does not decide to make it their translation of choice. Such a decision would be harmful to the WELS.

  16. Pastor Michael Sullivan
    June 30th, 2011 at 13:31 | #24

    Michael, I am not going to post your comment. You had every right to post what you did here, and you did nothing wrong. Pastor Braun is entirely responsible for his public comments, which can be, and should be, scrutinized carefully. This blog is as appropriate and legitimate a forum as any other. I’m sorry you have now been made to feel as though you did something wrong. You did nothing wrong. This kind of bullying is typical when a group is trying to force through an issue without adequate and careful scrutiny. The WELS has been done a tremendous disservice by the committee that is bringing forward its study.

  17. Tony Schmidt
    July 24th, 2011 at 18:54 | #25

    I am a student at Martin Luther College I know some of the Professors that were on the Translation Committee, I went to the first presentation of the summary of the NIV 2011, and I can say they are making the right decision. The Committee considered all options. The options being that the WELS could use a different translation out there, produce our own English translation, or except the NIV 2011. The first option was scrapped for obvious reasons, the second was not possible because the WELS does not have enough resources to do so, and that really only left the last option. The also examined the NIV 2011 edition carefully and found some problems and improvements. Overall the changes made to the NIV 2011 would not change our understanding of the message of the Bible. But the great thing about the NIV is it was purposed for revisions. Our Professors at the Seminary will always send their recommendations and our Pastors know the Greek and Hebrew so they can always explain things. And besides no translation is a perfect translation.

    • July 24th, 2011 at 20:00 | #26

      I can assure you that the committee acted with haste and was predisposed to want to keep the NiV2011. The NIV2011 has very grave theological problems, which the committee simply brushed aside. There were plenty of good options.There was nowhere near the careful study and attention this issue deserves across the entire WELS. It is a hasty decision and a bad decision and recommendation.

  18. Daniel Baker
    July 27th, 2011 at 01:27 | #27

    Pastor McCain,

    After watching the Translation Committee report and open forum regarding Biblical translation via Live Stream from today’s WELS Convention, I am a bit disillusioned by the Committee’s claim that all the translations out there are equally flawed, with the NIV2011 shining forth as the best option for WELS use (thankfully, and in spite of the Committee’s repeated insistence, most of the delegates who spoke at the forum were consistently against it for varied reasons). The Committee also trivialized the concerns of other groups, including the Southern Baptist Convention which rejected the NIV2011 (they were accused of having a vested interest in the HCSB and were “expected” to reject the NIV2011 for apparently monetary and other related reasons) and even yourself, Pr. McCain, your blog, and CPH. It almost seemed as if they were insinuating that your investment in the ESV was a cause for your disapproval of the NIV2011.

    The main reason I write, however, is to ask you to comment on the assertion that the ESV is as equally flawed in its translation as the NIV2011 is. Specifically, I was wondering if you had any thoughts in Prof. Nass’ commentary found here: http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/april-2011/some-thoughts-esv-and-bible-translation .

    Any clarification you can provide would be appreciated.

    • July 27th, 2011 at 06:30 | #28

      The committee is determined, apparently, to find, and put, the worst construction on anyone and everyone’s remarks who has expressed concerns. If they are accusing or suggesting that my concerns are in any motivated by money, they have sinned against me and while I know I won’t get it, a public apology would be in order.

      Why they are so zealous committed to NIV2011 is a major mystery to me. I do not have anything to say about Prof. Nass’ commentary. I have posted a number of things about the NIV2011 and you can read a summary of the concerns here.

Comments are closed.