sent word to Him, saying

Weighed in on other controversies for believers, why not this one: translations. As I see it, there are two viewpoints, and see if I can't be harsh to both.

The first viewpoint is that the Word is important to the literal word, that God inspired every point of grammar. Only word-for-word translations regardless of ease of comprehension convey what God wants the Word to convey. Using translations like the living Bible or the Message dilutes the Word, strips it of layers of meaning. Using translations meant to relate to the audience steals that job from the Holy Spirit, and you don't see the connection on why one choice for the word love in one chapter is different from the choice of another word for love in another chapter.

The second viewpoint is that the Word is important to better understand God, and in the same way we don't use the king's English in everyday speak now, we shouldn't let ancient grammatical structures impede our getting close to Him today. Bibles of yore were written and translated in the manner of the days in which they were translated. The living Bible and its ilk only seek to do the same for today's readers. One of the main reasons cited for irregular Bible-reading by Christians (and I'm really only speculating here) must be that some of it seems incomprehensible, or that there are chapters that seem really boring. So if a translation can remove that hindrance and draw students with short attention spans or less-educated people averse to reading, what's the harm? Aren't such translations no different than children's Bibles, and no one seems to be complaining about their existence.

My take is this: the slippery slope isn't one extreme tilting toward another. Most slopes try to convince you of that straight line mentality. But why can't it be a mountain top, with slopes falling to either side? There is an extreme to churches who believe only one translation is the one to be used. Frankly, these are in most cases the same churches who stick concretely to hymn-singing to the exclusion of real worship, so I'm not taking their advice on how to draw closer. To the other, there is a difference in removing obsolete grammatical structures, and completely destroying the sacred Word of God. Going straight to delivering the message but ignoring the word-choice will mean losing the yachid-echad beauty. Both sides lose something of God, and you don't want to be part of the losing.