Bill Mounce: NIV/TNIV is "Dynamic"

KJV-only claims about dynamic equivalency

D. A. Waite claimed: "These three things, subtracting, changing, and adding to the Word of God, are the essence and heart of dynamic equivalency in its approach to translation" (Defending the KJB, p. 93). He stated: "There's nothing more Satanic than altering or changing the Words of God" (Ibid., p. 107). Waite maintained that the dynamic equivalency technique "is devilish" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 15). Waite wrote: “When you use the technique of dynamic equivalency you do not preserve truth” (Foes, p. 121). He also asserted: “The King James Bible translators did not use dynamic equivalency” (Ibid., p. 62). Waite claimed that “the ‘Christian faith’ is also ‘threatened’ by the sloppy and inaccurate translation technique of these paraphrased so-called ‘translations’ in their use of ‘dynamic equivalency’” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 19). Waite commented: “This whole idea of dynamic equivalence, either modified, or complete, is still adding, subtracting, or changing in some way the Words of God. It is not proper translation and it is sin” (p. 100).


Gail Riplinger asserted: “With the devil’s destructive dynamite, one Bible word breaks into many pieces. With his Dynamic Equivalence method, used by new version editors, several English words are often used to translate one Greek or Hebrew word. Parts of speech are not necessarily carried over (e.g. a noun might be translated as an adjective, a singular word, like him, may become the plural, them) (In Awe, p. 271). In the first edition of her earlier book, Riplinger had also wrote that “the use of ‘Diana’, a dynamic equivalency (translating a word as meant and not as written), shows the breath of scholarship of the KJV translators” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 127). John Cereghin wrote: “The translator who makes use of dynamic equivalency deifies himself as he tried to rewrite God’s words into his own thought patterns” (Maranatha Baptist Watchman, August, 1997, p. 3). James Lloyd claimed: “Dynamic equivalency clearly adds words to the scriptures” (King James Controversy, p. 19). E. W. Whitten even asserted: “If you change the Words, punctuation, tense, position, or anything, it is no longer Scripture” (Truth, p. 39). Whitten claimed: “You cannot add or subtract Words, which includes changing their position in the sentence” (p. 38). Troy Clark asserted: When translating scripture by dynamic equivalency method, parts of speech may be switched by the person translating, as it is carried over from one language to another. … Verbs may change in tense. An adjective might become a noun. Plurals become singular. One word becomes three words” (Perfect Bible, p. 42). David Cloud wrote: “Dynamic equivalency ignores God’s warnings about adding to or taking away from God’s word” (Dynamic Equivalency, p. 43; Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 121; Faith, p. 664). He also stated: “Dynamic equivalency robs men of God’s words” (p. 44; Faith, p. 664). Cloud claimed: “It is impossible to be true to the Word of God while being faithful to dynamic equivalency” (Way of Life, p. 115). He also contended that “the bottom line is that dynamic equivalency is a perversion of Scripture” (p. 126). Cloud wrote that “dynamic equivalency denies the nature of the Bible” (Faith, p. 663). As part of his ten-fold defense of the KJV, Cloud maintained that “we hold to the KJV because we reject dynamic equivalency” (Faith, pp. 6, 29, 653).

According to a consistent application of KJV-only assertions about dynamic equivalency, would the KJV have a number of examples of the use of it?

Do KJV-only advocates consistently, truly, and completely reject dynamic equivalency if they accept any cases or examples of it in the KJV?

 

In my book The Challenge of Bible Translation Glen G. Scorgie wrote the introduction and overview. Here's a snip that is relevant:

"But at this point the reasoning of some (not all) conservative evangelicals begins to shift from defensible doctrine to questionable inference. Each individual word of Scripture, the questionable reasoning suggests, was specifically selected by God and delivered to us from above in a manner very similar to dictation. The words were sent down, one at a time, like crystal droplets. Each word is an autonomous integer, separate from the rest, and each is to be treasured like a sacred gem and cherished inviolate for all time.

When it comes to translation preference and practice, the implications of this way of thinking are predictable. Those who view Scripture this way (and not all evangelicals do, of course) favor attempts at word-for-word translation. Translations produced in this fashion are naively thought to retain all the precious original words, except that they are just in a different code now. The inclination is to assume that in every language there is a template of more or less exact equivalents to the inspired Hebrew and Greek words with which we started out. This is, of course, not the case at all. If evangelicals are to get beyond their current impasse over translation theory, they will need a more profound doctrine of biblical inerrancy --one that continues to respect the inspired words of the original text but also acknowledges that these words are mere instruments in the service of a higher purpose, namely, the communication of meaning." (p.23)

 

Sounds like he is using scholary talk to basically state that he denies the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible!

 

Not exactly news. Mounce wrote in his Greek for the Rest of Us (2003), What Are Translations? (Chapter 4, p24) --

The other way to translate is to translate meaning. The technical term for this is "dynamic equivalence", or what is now called "formal equivalence". ... Dynamic translation chooses whatever words the English requires in order to convey the same meaning. This where the NIV fits. ​

 

I think a mistake was made in the quote. Shouldn't it be or what is now called "functional equivalence" ...?

 

It still is assuming though that God did not have His word recorded down in a verbal plenary way though...
Every word was inspirit by the Spirit, not just "thought for thought"

 

Try reading with comprehension. And perhaps you are distracted by other things.

 

Indeed, you are correct. So sorry for my mistake. Thank you for having my back, Rip!

 

How can one do a thought for thought if the very words themselves were inspired down to us though?

 

You cannot. When you do it is nothing but a commentary.

 

Two separate quotes from Rod Decker:

"I happen to believe that verbal inspiration is valid, but any such verbal construct relates only to the original text, not to a translation. To suggest as some have, that such a view of inspiration mandates a particular approah to translation is (I'll try to be 'nice'!) foolishness."

"...the ESV is sometimes viewed as more accurate or more reliable due to its supposed use of formal equivalence. This has been argued to be more consistent with verbal inspiration --a conclusion which reflects very little understanding of either inspiration or translation."

 

From my treasured book :How to Choose a Translation for all Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark Strauss some cogent words.

The authors say that within the Evangelical community "there is a poor understanding of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which historically does not refer to the words as 'words in themselves,' but 'words as they convey meaning.' It is precisely at this point that we would argue that a translation that places the priority of meaning over form is much in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration, since at issue always is the 'meaning' of the inspired words. The translation that best conveys that meaning is the most faithful to this historic doctrine.

...And since languages differ in terms word word meanings, grammatical constructions, and idioms, translation can never be about simply replacing words. The Hebrew and Greek text must first be interpreted --word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase,clause-by-clause --to determine the original meaning. Then this meaning must be painstakingly reproduced using different words, phrases, and clauses in English. The translation that most closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text, not just its words.' (p.35,36)

 

Did the Holy Spirit Himself inspire down to every word that which was recorded down in the originals or mot?

And should we not try to get at first what those words meants in the original languages at the time of them being written down, before proceeding further?

 

Before proceeding further, you need to tighten up your grammar and spelling.
"inspire down"
"in the originals or mot"
"what those words meants"

!!!!!!!
_____________________________________________________
Hear Mark Strauss:

"Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original readers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through."

 

yes, but again, that would be what they intended to be conveyed by the words they chose to write down, not what we think/interprete that they meant!

 

How you continue to be in a fog about this is mystifying. Please read with understanding. Get rid of distractions. All translations have to make interpretative decisions about what the original text meant; each and every one.

 

Hear Mark Strauss:

"Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original readers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through."[/QUOTE]
Read with understanding. Do not misinterpret. Take your time.

 

Rippon, I want you to know that I have been following this conversation with interest and really appreciate the information being shared. While I am not yet totally convinced of your view, summarized in the quote above, I certainly see the logic of the position. I grew up in KJVOnlyism but finally left that error about a year ago and have landed on the NASB for deeper study (primarily that is, I compare it with other versions) and the HCSB for teaching and reading.

Would you say that the HCSB is more on the dynamic or formal side of the spectrum?

 

You're welcome RLB.

It's right in the middle with the NIV, NET Bible, NAB and some would say the REB and NJB etc. It's a blend of formal and functional. It weaves in and out as the others that I mentioned do. Now the NASB, ESV, NRSV, NKJ etc. on the more form-oriented side also do a fair amount of weaving but not as much as the mediating versions do.

 

OK. That's what I thought.