Please don’t mind. This might interest you.

The SecondComing of Jesus has already happened in the form of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 fullfilling the signs as prophesised by Jesus and Muhammad. In my opinion, the Christians, Muslims and Jews should accept him.

Kindly visit my blog for interesting posts in this connection for your peaceful comments and or discussions on the pages/posts there. Differing opinions are also welcome.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

For example, I often see posts from NASB users that reflect a belief that the NASB is the literal word of God, that because it’s generally accepted as the “most literal” translation, that means it is the same as the originals. It’s not. It, like every other English version, is a translation. We need to either say that all well-intentioned translations contain the truth of the thought and meaning of God’s word, or say that all translations are *not* God’s word and cannot be accepted as authoritative.

There’s a parallel here to worship styles – if you don’t like contemporary music, do you find another church/service time or do you accept the differences? If you can’t accept the translation that your corporate church is using, what do you do? Moreover, how can you accept that church’s Biblical teaching as authoritative? Do you find a church that accepts “your” translation or accept the differences?

Does the church have authority over the individual members? or is it just a framework in which individual Christians come together?

Sorry about the ramble, it’s not aimed at anyone or any comment in particular… just some mid-week thoughts.

Just a quick comment: One problem I ran into several months ago when I was using the pew Bibles at church was the passage for that Sunday, and I can’t remember what it was since it was so long ago, had what I considered an unusual reading in the NRSV. I immediately started thinking about what that wording meant and how I remembered the reading from other translations. I don’t think I heard the sermon after that. When I got home I immediately took out several other versions to compare them with the NRSV. Now I bring one of my own Bibles to church (UMs are notorious for not bringing their Bibles to church), usually the NASB, and in such a situation I can quickly check to see the difference.

Innocence? Yes, but I don’t like being tied into a translation I have never really trusted. I think it’s a good thing to have quite a number of translations in the church, just like in our own personal study.

(Oh, and thanks for pointing out that it was my pastor who made those comments, and not me.)

For example, if you were asked to do a scripture reading as a call to worship, and your Church uses the NIV, then by all means, read from the NIV. When you are sitting in the congregation, following along as the pastor is going through the text, then use whatever translation you want. Of course, using the NIV in this case has obvious benefits. Basically, I think that it would be best for most people to follow along in the same translation, I don’t think there is a responsibility to do so.

As for your anecdote from this past Sunday, I have certainly been in the same situation. What I try and do (knowing that I get easily distracted) is make a note of it and come back to it after the service for contemplation, so that it won’t detract from the next point. However, it doesn’t always help because I get distracted by…ooh look! something shiny!

I ran into this last point on Sunday. Our text was from Genesis 45 (we’ve been working through the story of Joseph); in 45:3, the text says that Joseph’s brothers were bahal at seeing him. The NIV translates this as “terrified”, while the REB I was reading translates it as “dumbfounded”. Our pastor went on to explain that this was the same word used to describe an army trembling under attack. At that point I went into a mental tailspin regarding the relative correctness of “dumbfounded” in my text and missed whatever pastor’s next point was. I was not engaged in listening, but in comparing translations. If I had been using an NIV (or even a TNIV), I would have been nonplussed by the explanation and fully engaged with the sermon.

I think it’s just fine for Gary to say the two comments that he did. Having one church bible is great for public reading, for the very reason Wayne mentions. Having to convert from one translation to another distract some from the sermon. But it’s also good to have some familiarity with several translations, especially for personal study. I assume that by “study” in the first quote, he means public study, in teaching or preaching. Also, I don’t think someone who goes to a church should be locked into one version if they are comfortable following along with their favorite translation.