Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College had a great post yesterday on Reading and Writing Well.

Nielson’s post had me cheering out loud (quietly to myself).

I’m in a technical field and I’ve often found that writing poorly and spelling poorly (and practicing poor personal hygiene) is often looked upon as a badge of honor. No need wasting important brain capacity on grammar and vocabulary.

To: Balaaditya
From: Bob
Subject: Code not working
Baladitya-
You’re code didn’t compile again, you big dumb head I think it’s broke. What’s up with it?

Get back with me tomorrow
or today on the problem.

l8r,
-Boob

Anyway, back to reading well.
In his post, Nielson points out, as most of us know, that good writers are avid readers.

After all, it’s virtually impossible to learn how to write well without reading widely and much. A common characteristic of excellent writers is that they are voracious readers, and it’s their exposure to great writers and great writing that serves them well in their own writing efforts.

Quoting John Piper, Nielson moves on and stresses the importance of reading for “people of the Book.”

…an overwhelming argument for giving our children a disciplined and rigorous training in how to think an author’s thoughts after him from a text – especially a biblical text. An alphabet must be learned, as well as vocabulary, grammar, syntax, the rudiments of logic, and the way meaning is imparted through sustained connections of sentences and paragraphs…. (A)part from the discipline of reading, the Bible is as powerless as paper.

The ability to read does not come intuitively. It must be taught. And learning to read with understanding is a life-long labor. The implications for Christians are immense. Education of the mind in the rigorous discipline of thoughtful reading is a primary goal of school. The church of Jesus is debilitated when his people are lulled into thinking that it is humble or democratic or relevant to give a merely practical education that does not involve the rigorous training of the mind to think hard and construe meaning from difficult texts.

Then the post really gets good as Nielson discusses the importance of understanding the writer’s meaning and the importance of a good Bible translation. (This is incredibly timely based on Chris Taylor’s teaching of the Men’s Bible Study this session. Chris is taking us through a Biblical Boot Camp of outlining scripture content, structure and the author’s thought flow in 2 Peter. It promises be challenging and highly rewarding, so if you don’t plan on attending, you should plan on attending).

Nielson:

Reading well and with understanding helps us get at the writer’s meaning only if we have dependable access to the writer’s meaning. Once again, this brings us to the reading of the Bible. Even a good reading of a scriptural text won’t enable us to think the author’s thoughts after him if the text in translation is not a dependable transmission of the text in the original language. Not only should this prompt us to consider the study of Hebrew and Greek as a more regular feature of the ministry of the church, but it also should heighten our interest in which English translation we utilize for our study.

His first example of the importance of a good translation is made using a passage from 2 Peter (did I mention this post is timely).

2 Peter 1:16-21 is a text of biblical epistemology: how we know what we know about Jesus and his coming again, so that we might believe and live rightly. Peter offers two levels of validation for the coming of Jesus in glory and judgment: his own eye- and ear-witness account of the glory of Jesus revealed on the mountain of transfiguration, which served as an anticipation of the glory to be revealed at his coming; and the testimony of the prophets, who wrote, not according to their own interpretation or will, but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

But what is the relationship between these two levels of validation? Is Peter’s eye- and ear-witness account a more solid foundation for our faith than the prophets’ testimony, or is it the reverse? Which it is is important – the issue goes to the heart of the confidence we can have in the written Word of God.

And yet we find two different popular translations giving contrary versions of the order. The New International Version translates v. 19 as follows: “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain…”, the sense being that the written testimony of the prophets has been made “more certain” by the eye- and ear-witness testimony of Peter and the apostles. On the other hand, the English Standard Version translates the same verse, “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word…”, the sense being that the written word of the prophet is more sure than Peter’s own personal account.

The point is that we can read either version closely and get the meaning, but – which meaning did Peter intend?

Yes, he goes on to tell which translation he feels is best, but you’ll need to head over and read his complete post. I will say that his post could certainly be used as advertising for one translation in particular.