Home > CPH Resources > Best Selling Confirmation Resource Now Available in an English Standard Version Edition

Best Selling Confirmation Resource Now Available in an English Standard Version Edition

July 26th, 2012
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

I’m pleased to let you know that as part of our new Lutheran Day School religion curriculum we have revised and updated the best selling confirmation resource Applying Luther’s Catechism, with both a student guide and a very well done teacher’s guide. Since the days of the possibility that we can still use the New International Version are numbered, in light of the [disastrously bad] new version of the NIV, the English Standard Version is the standard translation Concordia Publishing House is using across all our resources in every product group, including all our confirmation resources. So, please take some time to check out this updated edition of “Applying Luther’s Catechism.” You can read more about it here and download a sample. This resource is useful for any context: homeschool, a church without a day school, Wed evening confirmation, etc. 




If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: CPH Resources
  1. July 26th, 2012 at 17:57 | #1

    Does this mean that the next Synod Convention may have a request from CPH to change to the ESV for the enchiridion

    • July 27th, 2012 at 07:19 | #2

      No, since we would not want again to tie the Enchiridion down to any particular translation and face yet another problem in the future. We will instead move to a translation that is entirely owned by The LCMS, which is quite easily done, in fact, we have one all ready to go in the Concordia edition, which is basically just a version of the older text, sans, Jacobian style.

  2. David Dollins
    July 26th, 2012 at 19:47 | #3

    I speak as a Bible Teacher and a born again Christian. I must say I believe your wholesale bashing of the NIV 2011 is way over the top, especially coming from a person of leadership. It grieves me. It would be easy to turn the table on the ESV regarding their ‘forced’ translation in various texts as it relates to women (I am a complimentarian). First, the ESV translators mistranslated Romans 16:1 when the Greek word for ‘servant’ is diakonos. Yep, the same word that is called Deacon in 1 Timothy 3:8,12. That means Phoebe, a female, was a Deacon in the early church. Second, in 1 Timothy 3:11, the ESV translators again mistranslated a verse. The ESV says ‘their wives’, implying that Deacons were all male and it then referred to their wives. The NIV 2011, as well as the literal NASB, translate this word correctly. Its the Greek word for ‘women’. It should say…Likewise women should…This leaves open that even here it could have been talking about women being Deacons. At least the NIV took the correct middle-ground instead of forcing a translation on the text, the very thing they accuse the NIV 2011 of doing. Finally, the ESV mistranslated Romans 16:7. Now that everyone realizes that Junia was a female, the ESV forced a translation on the text that is just plain foreign to the text, saying that Andronicus and Junia were ‘well known TO the apostles’ as opposed to a correct translation of well known AMONG the apostles which would have left open the possibility, either way, and correctly so. The ESV translators solved it for everyone…yes, they interpreted. It is the ESV translation that has become agenda-driven. Females are subordinate and have their place, just not in any leadership role. Is the NIV 2011 perfect? Of course not. But to simply ‘go off’ on your web page is inadvisable, not to mention misleading people about the translations. I like the ESV and the NIV 2011 both, but for different reasons. But the tact you have taken? I just don’t think I would have gone there. I hope you are able to explain and justify to all the Lutheran women the above passages. Absolutely incredible.

    • July 27th, 2012 at 07:17 | #4

      If you click on the hyperlink in the post you’ll have access to a wide range of resources documenting and demonstrating the debacle that is NIV2011. It is an unfaithful translation of the Bible that should not be used.

  3. July 26th, 2012 at 21:58 | #5

    Thanks for the links to your past articles on the NIV. We replaced the pew Bibles some years ago with ESV but I never knew why. I myself have a NIV1984 and the Lutheran Study Bible is NIV. I will now go to CPH and replace them for my home use!

  4. Jonathan Trost
    July 27th, 2012 at 09:47 | #6


    And, into this NIV vs. ESV “mix”, where does the NRSV (copyrighted 1989 by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the US, and published by the American Bible Society) fit?

Comments are closed.