From Latin to Dhimba in just a few centuries

By the fourth century AD the Roman Empire had moved from the Greek language to Latin for the ordinary folk which created a problem for Christians reading scripture in their own language. The Pope chose Jerome (now St. Jerome) to translate the Bible into Latin. He was a good choice. He knew Latin, Greek and Hebrew, had studied Aramaic, and could speak Syriac and knew some Arabic. He spent 20 years at his task, and we should all be grateful. When we were in Bethlehem a few years ago our Palestinian guide (a Christian) showed us his cell/cave.


This week I received an announcement from Lutheran Bible Translators Messenger, Spring 2014, that the Dhimba people have received the New Testamewnt in their language for the first time and had a big celebration. The Dhimba are an estimated 30,000 people living along the Namibia/Angola border. They are anxious to start on the Old Testament as it is more understandable culturally for the Dhimba. LBT in the footsteps of Jerome.

http://us.lbt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/news-jstrasen.pdf

"Ondaka ya ninga omuntu ngwaa kala mokati ketu." Johannes 1:14 Etestamende Epe

"The word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ." John 1:14

Be changed by God’s Word. Don’t let the Word be changed

“To all believers, not just Lutherans, and to all not-yet believers in Jesus Christ: Have ears to hear!

It is very important for you to hear today that Jesus died for you to save you from your sin through repentance, forgiveness and new life, which are true freedom in Him.

That is the message and the calling for the church. That is not up for a vote. . . God’s Word is not up for a vote and, remember, He always gets the last word because He alone is eternal.”

Word alone newsletter, in response to the vote to accept homosexual behavior

Gender issues in the ESV

Our church, UALC, has been using the NIV for many years, but I've noticed a number of people, including at least 2 of our pastors, have moved to the English Standard Version, which is essentially a word for word translation, as opposed to phrase for phrase or a paraphrase. Looking through the website for the ESV, I noticed this on "gender issues."

Gender Issues

In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original.

For example, “anyone” replaces “any man” where there is no word corresponding to “man” in the original languages, and “people” rather than “men” is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew.

Similarly, the English word “brothers” (translating the Greek word adelphoi) is retained as an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century. A recurring note is included to indicate that the term “brothers” (adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women, and to indicate the specific instances in the text where this is the case.

In addition, the English word “sons” (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because of its meaning as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome. As used by the apostle Paul, this term refers to the status of all Christians, both men and women, who, having been adopted into God’s family, now enjoy all the privileges, obligations, and inheritance rights of God’s children.

The inclusive use of the generic “he” has also regularly been retained, because this is consistent with similar usage in the original languages and because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it.

Similarly, where God and man are compared or contrasted in the original, the ESV retains the generic use of “man” as the clearest way to express the contrast within the framework of essentially literal translation.

In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture.

Do you suppose this will catch on?

Could change some of that happy clappy music protestants love. I saw this item at Modern Reformation, a conservative Presbyterian publicantion.

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Catholics at worship should neither sing nor pronounce the name of God as "Yahweh," the Vatican has said, citing the authority of both Jewish and Christian practice.

The instruction came in a June 29 letter to Catholic bishops conferences around the world from the Vatican's top liturgical body, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, by an explicit "directive" of Pope Benedict XVI.

"In recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel's proper name," the letter noted, referring to the four-consonant Hebrew "Tetragrammaton," YHWH. That name is commonly pronounced as "Yahweh," though other versions include "Jaweh" and "Yehovah." But such pronunciation violates long-standing Jewish tradition, the Vatican reminded bishops.

"As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, (the name) was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: `Adonai,' which means `Lord,'" the Congregation said.

That practice continued with Christianity, the letter explained, recalling the "church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred Tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated."

Invoking a Vatican document from 2001, the Congregation reminded bishops that the name "Yahweh" in Catholic worship should be replaced by the Latin "Dominus" (Lord) or a word "equivalent in meaning" in the local language.

One flock, one shepherd, many sheep

It's difficult to keep track of the battles ongoing among Lutherans--never mind all the other Christians. And don't think for a moment just because they give allegiance to one church, that Roman Catholics don't have great diversity among their parishes and orders. I may never live long enough to understand how we are all Christians.

The other day I was reading an advice column from WELS--Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. A woman, who apparently attends an ELCA congregation (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) somewhat reluctantly, was asking if it was proper to once a year attend a Mennonite service out of respect and in memory of her dear saintly mother, who was a Mennonite. Her concern was apparently worship participation with those Christians who were not confessional Lutherans. The e-pastor gently but firmly chided her for worrying about 1/365 of the year, when the 364 other days she was subjecting her mind and spirit to the teachings of the ELCA!

Then today I came across the webpage of the Church of the Lutheran Confession, which is even more exclusionary than WELS. It will not fellowship with a number of Lutheran bodies because of "unionism," which is not labor unions, but churches which keep their own polity, adhere to the Lutheran confessions, but cooperate with each other in some form. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) from which the CLC evolved in the 1930s is beyond the pale because although they don't ordain women, women are allowed a voice in the church by voting, and LCMS fellowships with WELS in some areas, which taints WELS, for CLC.

At the other end of the spectrum, I looked at a webpage of an ELCA pastor who attended our congregation when he was in seminary here in Columbus--don't remember the year, but probably late 80s. They were a wonderful family and contributed so much to our small group Bible study which they joined. Both husband and wife were gifted Bible teachers--although his English was better (both foreign born). The seminary in Columbus is very liberal, but he was able to get by with his strong Biblical views because they needed minority students. Looking at the various things he's involved in, he seems to now be a gay pastor supporting the marriage of gays, lesbians and transgendered. The web page of his church and the organizations where I found his photo and name do not seem Biblical to me. So at that end of Lutheranism, I would seem as narrow as the CLC decrying women being allowed to vote as unbiblical.

Fortunately, Jesus will sort this all out when he returns.

Fifty years and beyond

Today I came across a good story in a religious journal over 100 years old (Evangelical Visitor, Brethren in Christ, 1887), so I googled its source to see if it was on-line (so I wouldn't have to retype it). Google has scanned many old books, so I did find "Fifty years and beyond; or gathered gems for the aged," by S.G. Lathrop, 1881 (has been reprinted in 2007--the boomers are entering old age!). The story reminds me very much of one I've heard Pastor John Stolzenbach (UALC) tell of his ministry to some of our older members, who although they may have dementia and don't remember their own family members, remember the words to hymns, liturgy and Bible verses they learned long ago.

The author tells of singing the song of salvation with a 98 year old man--"quick [modern] music loses its charm" (even in 1881)--and then goes on to tell this story. From the chapter, "The Lord is my strength and my song." p. 140

"Do you know me?" said the wife to her aged husband who was dying. He said, "No."

And the son said, "Father, do you know me?" He said, "No."

The daughter said, "Father, do you know me?" He said, "No."

The minister of the Gospel standing by, said, "Do you know Jesus?" "Oh yes," he said, "I know him, 'chief among ten thousand, and one altogether lovely'."

Blessed be the Bible in which spectacled old age reads the promise. "I will never leave you, never forsake you." Blessed the staff on which the worn out pilgrim totters on toward the welcome of his Redeemer. Blessed the hymn-book in which the faltering tongue and the failing eyes find Jesus, the old man's song."

The message of the Bible

is not "The Lord helps those who help themselves," but "the Lord helps those who are helpless." Christianity has to do not with man reaching up to God, but with God reaching down to man and offering him salvation as a free, undeserved gift; not with man attempting to justify himself, but with God invading history and making forgiveness possible by taking the sins of the world upon Himself. According to the Bible, we live in a fallen, sinful world, a world populated by men and women who are in rebellion against God and who are thus separated from His loving presence. We all are guilty of sin; we all possess what the church calls "original sin," but which the Bible more accurately calls a "sinful nature." . . . Christians do not gain salvation by their own merit (trying to do so would be like mopping a floor with dirty water), but because the God-man, Jesus Christ, who was the only human to live and not sin, took the punishment for our sin upon Himself. . ." From "Culture, religion, philosophy, and myth: what Christianity is not," by Louis Markos, Christian Research Journal, Vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 32-39

Salvation isn't earned; it is a gift. Good deeds follow salvation; works are not a means but an outpouring of love. But every Sunday, in thousands of churches in our land, preachers will stand before their congregations and turn this message upside down, offering an endless "to-do list" instead of the gospel.

The "purpose" in Rick Warren's best seller, The purpose driven life, is all about you and me, not Jesus. In fact, I'm not sure he gets to salvation until the end of the book, where he says he can provide a list of books on how to share the Good News (the gospel). He bounces around the NT at such speed, that if I hadn't already known the gospel when I read this book, I'd get to the end with another "to-do list" about the local church and global mission.

The final entry in volume one of the Brethren Encyclopedia (3 vol) says: "Saving faith can be known only by a life of piety and obedience to Christ. Justification (declared righteous) is assured only in those whose faith manifested itself in obedience." What a message of works! For the last 30 years I believed I didn't hear the gospel because my ears were closed and I was rebellious, thinking I didn't need to be saved. Now I think I didn't hear it because it wasn't preached where I attended church (Church of the Brethren and United Church of Christ, one of the parent denominations of First Community Church in Marble Cliff, OH). [This doesn't excuse me--there was enough sin in my life it should have been obvious.] And although I'm in a believing church now with godly pastors, they too often slip into the theme of the day without first announcing why we have gathered to worship the Creator and Redeemer of the universe. [You have a better chance of NOT missing the point if you attend a liturgical service, but most don't because they like happy clappy music.] The gospel settles us down and reminds us of who we are--people precious in God's sight for whom Christ died. Then we can get down to the business of worshiping and serving a mighty God.