Too good?

In my own personal Bible study I just finished the Gospel of Luke. As so often happens, I started off reading in one translation, but pretty soon I find myself reading in other translations, and often cross-checking between them. In this case, I started in the new NIV, but soon was reading a lot in my NASB 1977, and as I went along I was cross-checking in just about all the different translations I own.

Generally I have been extremely pleased with the new NIV. I use it and highly recommend it. But lately in my reading it sometimes almost seems…uh…sort of dull. When I cross-check with other translations, particularly with the more formal-equivalence translations, I am usually extremely pleased with the comparative accuracy in the new NIV. Nearly all the nuances that I pick up on in the formal translations are there in the NIV, too. Plus, I can see the examples of the latest scholarship, and am comforted that we have such an accurate, yet easy-to-read translation. I find the new NIV a very good Bible to use for serious Bible study.

But there seems to be something wrong. The NIV just doesn’t “grab” me.

Maybe I’m expecting too much. But one thing I really enjoy about the old 1977 NASB, and perhaps to a lesser extent the updated 1995 NASB, is that I’ll be reading along, and all of a sudden something will reach out and grab me. Not literally, of course, but something I read will really get my attention, like I never read that part before. I find myself using that old NASB77 more and more, instead of the new NIV.

Could it be that the new NIV is just too good? Is it that there just aren’t enough questionable (or surprising) renderings in it to keep me interested? Has the CBT done too good a job?

Expectation

…or, “So what do you expect?”

“You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
(Luke 12:40 NIV)

I don’t like to take verses out of context. You can usually understand the meaning better if you read a passage within the context of the verses around it, and/or the whole chapter, and/or, in my humble opinion, the whole Bible. However, this verse is so clear and so universal in its application that I think we can look at it in and of itself.

I was reading in Luke 12 the other day, and this verse hit me over the head. We’ve all read it many times, I’m sure, and we think we know what it means. The Son of Man will come (…his second coming…) when we do not expect him to come. That theme is found in both the Old and the New Testaments.

But when is that?

Don’t different people, i.e., different eschatological systems, have different expectations? If I have premillennial beliefs that the Lord’s second coming would come at the end of the most terrible tribulation in the history of the world, then I wouldn’t be expecting him to return during a time of worldwide peace and harmony. And if I have Amillennial beliefs, then I wouldn’t expect the Lord to return during a time of great tribulation, but instead when people have learned to live with each other peacefully. Our expectations are different.

Except…the verse says the Lord will return when we do not expect him to come.

I don’t know if that means nobody will be expecting him at that time. I suspect that because He tells us to be alert and read the signs of the times, that we, his people, will have an idea that he may be coming soon and we need to be ready, though we will not know the time for sure.

The context of this discourse appears to be that he’s speaking to his disciples, but among a very large crowd of people. The very next verse has Peter asking the Lord, “Are you saying this to everybody or just to us?” The Lord doesn’t answer his question directly.

So, the Lord will return when we do not expect. Is that clear? I had a teacher once who would ask the class, “Is that clear as mud?”

I think it means that we should be living as though he could return the next instant. What kind of lives should we than be leading?

What am I doing here?

You’re probably asking.

Well, if there’s one thing that bothers me about WordPress, it’s that you can’t control the size and darkness of your blog text. You pretty much have to take what comes with the theme, unless you’re much more tech-savvy than I am, or just happen to be using a theme that allows it (of which I haven’t found any).

I had a comment a few days ago that the reader liked my blog theme and the way I had it set up, but was having a hard time with the smaller font in that theme. I myself also have lots of trouble with smaller fonts, as well as gray text, or at least a lack of contrast between the text and the background. I really don’t understand why so many blog themes use a gray text. Some of them are almost impossible to read!

So anyway, I have now embarked on a quest (hey, that sounds kinda neat!) to find a blog theme which has a large enough and dark enough text font, and still has the clean, professional look that I want. That means this theme I am using right now may change very soon.

And that’s what I’m doing here!

Reconsidering my Bible Preferences

I do it all the time.

I have to say though, that even though it didn’t make it into my Bible Preference page, I really did take a long, hard look at the NKJV. There are some readings there that just take me back to my childhood years; they are so much the way I remember hearing the Bible read in church back then. And I think it’s a pretty decent translation, considering the manuscript family it’s based upon. But when we get down to brass tacks, (brass tacks?) the NKJV has too many archaic words and clumsy phrases. While the NKJV is relatively accurate, it’s just not the way we speak English any more. So while I have no problem when someone says to me they really have learned a lot from their NKJV Study Bible, for example, if they asked my advice I’d still try and steer them to something a bit more modern… like the latest NIV.

A lot of folks read the ESV. Thank God if they actually read it and study it! I have a beautiful ESV Single Column Reference Bible with the soft Tru-tone cover and the nice, smooth Bible paper. It’s a pleasure to use. But as I said in a previous post, the translation has some clumsy phrasing and archaic expressions. Still, it reminds me of earlier good translations, especially the RSV, oddly enough! It’s almost fine English from an earlier era…almost. I will keep it and continue to use it in cross-checking with other translations; even occasionally reading entire chapters and books. It’s fine, but it can’t be my number one choice.

There are others that I occasionally look at, the NLT, the HCSB; I can’t really get into them any more. Sometimes I will take a look at the new Common English Bible (CEB), but I am usually frustrated and disappointed with that one. I really hope my UMC doesn’t go with that one. I much prefer the NRSV that is our default version now. I have come to appreciate the NRSV quite a bit. If I had to, I could probably use the NRSV as my main Bible, but they really need to start publishing some good formats in the NRSV, like common, normal-size Bibles with decent covers, and real, REAL, large-print Bibles. It’s very hard to find anything I can afford in a NRSV that has larger than an 8-pt. font.

Then there’s the NET BIble. That’s one I should really get a paper copy of, with a nice cover. I think I would really appreciate it if I had it at hand most of the time. The Reader’s Edition would probably be sufficient; if I really needed to dig deeper, I could always warm up the laptop computer and check out the First Edition with its 60,000+ notes.

Of course, I have my NASB, the well-worn 95 update as well as my new-old 1977 NASB. I am frequently very pleased with these, though I can’t help but be put off by the 1977 version’s use of thee/thy/thine etc.; that is one thing that really holds me back from making it at least my #2 Bible.

My #1? Can’t you guess? It’s gotta be the newest and latest 2011 NIV. It combines easy readability with uncanny accuracy and the latest scholarship. I think it’s the best all-around translation available today.

But that’s just what I think.

Early Thoughts on the ESV 2011

Have you ever heard of it? I hadn’t until yesterday. My co-worker is in a very conservative church where the translation of choice, for most of their members, is the ESV. My co-worker is accepting of the ESV, but actually prefers the NKJV, or the NASB in a pinch. He was reading at Sharper Iron and came across this link. He gave it to me to look at, and I found this very interesting little article:

when will the esv cease evolving?

Are you aware that the ESV continues to evolve? When will it grow up? I was sent the link below by a friend today and it troubles me. The document lists nearly 300 changes and this group is only one in a series of revisions that have appeared (quietly) since its publication over a decade ago.

I think that the changes are mostly good, but that is not my point. With this series of almost annual revisions, my original hunch is being confirmed. I think that the ESV was only a slight revision of the old RSV and that it was rushed into publication because of the pending news about the TNIV, which was in the works at the time. It would be interesting to know if Crossway pushed for the new translation to scoop Zondervan and capitalize on the negative publicity about the TNIV. Can someone address that issue?

The NASB and the NIV have undergone only one or two revisions in their much longer lifetimes. Why so many changes? Isn’t Crossway embarrassed by the fact that their colossal ESV Study Bible is now outdated with its inferior readings?

Now here is the real irony. When I examined the changes, what surprised me was that a number of them bring the ESV into agreement with the (cursed) NIV 2011. How can these guys keep criticizing the NIV when their ESV is becoming more like it?

You should know that I have been a fan of the ESV for years, but my enthusiasm has started to cool. First it was because of the notes in the ESV Study Bible, which I reviewed critically a few years ago (e.g., the “Daniel” in Ezekiel was a pagan hero!), and now I am perplexed with this unending series of revisions! How do I use my old ESV in class when it differs now in over a thousand verses with the new ESVs in my students’ hands? Will this be a boon for the HCSB? Please don’t tell me it is being revised!!!

Are Piper and the other pastors who have promoted the ESV pleased with all these changes? Did we place our trust in an inferior product that is acknowledged to be so by its own translation team?

I told myself that I would no longer be controversial in my posts, but I am making an exception. Will someone from Crossway or the Grudem translation team (Bill Mounce?) please answer my questions? I will post any official responses here and call attention to them on my FB and Twitter posts.

Oh, yes, the link to those most recent changes: http://d3p91it5krop8m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/misc/esv_2011_changes.html

Personally, I have a nice ESV single-column reference Bible, and have come to enjoy using it in spite of its rather clumsy and archaic translation. And I doubt that the changes I have seen so far are going to make a whole lot of difference in this translation. It’s still rather clumsy and archaic. But it’s still not bad. Will these changes affect the perceived stability and solid reputation of the ESV? Well, I guess that depends on how they are perceived.

As for me, I’m not going to worry about it.