Featured Defense of the NIV

If you are talking to me, I have no idea. I don't have the version, don't want it and don't have the money to buy it.

Also, when are you going to refute Stine and give quotes from Luther on code theory, transformational grammar and reader response?

 

I'm not so sure he was the prideful one, though since I was not there I can't say. But personally, I would never challenge a SS teacher in such a public way unless I was a pastor. IMO, one should approach him humbly in private if one disagrees strongly with him on such an issue.

If you're trying to get me to take one side or another on the KJVO issue, sorry but as I've told you I don't do that. I know many wonderful Christians on both sides.

 

Interestingly enough, I just found a quote from Nida that warns against just what Rippon is accusing me of doing, that is, saying that conservative translators are neo-orthodox simply because they follow Nida's method. (That is something I have never done, by the way, either here on the BB or elsewhere.) That would be a silly thing to do. I know a Muslim style of kung fu called Tan Tui, "Springing Legs" (彈腿). Does that make me a Muslim when I practice it? Of course not!

Anyway, here's the quote from Nida:

"On the other hand, those who hold the neo-orthodox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to be freer in their translating; as they see it, since the original document inspired its readers because it spoke meaningfully to them, only an equally meaningful translation can have this same power to inspire present-day receptors. It would be quite wrong, however, to assume that all those who emphasize fully meaningful translations necessarily hold to a neo-orthodox view of inspiration; for those who have combined orthodox theology with deep evangelistic or missionary convictions have been equally concerned with the need for making translations entirely meaningful."

Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964, p. 27.

 

I am in full agreement with the above. But Mr.L. Ryken, who you have frequently quoted very favorably in the past, would counter the above most stridently.

 

And I have told you over and over that Mr. Nida did not invent the theory of dynamic or functional equivalence. It was used centuries before his birth.

A few years ago I informed you of Ernst R.Wenland who said of Luther :The Father of Confessional,Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation.

Functional equivalence is at its heart natural and idiomatic. It gives the sense of the text. And that's the same thing Purvey belived.

 

Wow, you have a great imagination. Actually, all I have by Ryken is the one essay in the one book, Translating Truth. I may have quoted him to you one time. What is it with you and Ryken that you hate him so much? Did he bully you in grade school or something? :laugh:

 

Answer me one thing. Have you ever actually read a book by Nida? He wrote quite a few, you know. I have eight by him and have read them all, not to mention articles by him.

So, for me to agree with you on this, which of his books have you read to get your view of Nida's method?

 

Okay, so I'll take this as you saying you have no quotes from Luther on code theory, transformational grammar or reader response. So you can't prove that Luther practiced DE.

 

They are both great authors, I enjoy reading both of them.

 

Sorry, I see no insult in that post. And I see no defensiveness there.

Combativeness? Yes. This is a debate forum.

 

Would that be Ryken and Nida? What have you read by Nida? (Just curious.)

 

wrong thread.............

 

You equate debate with combat?

 

Would you agree with me then that the more formal/literal version translators that worked on say Nasb/Nkjv would be more orthodox in regards to Biblical inerrancy as others holding to more dynamic/COLLOQUIAL renderings?

That if one holds to Inerrancy of the originals fully, would hold to verbal plenary, and thus hold to going motr formal/literal route to translate?

 

The word was combativeness, not combat. There is a difference. And I didn't use the word, he did.

If I had said I was not being combative, would he have then said, "See, I told you that you were being defensive!" There was no win either way for me. :laugh:

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Let me qualify this statement. I believe there are many good people who have a more free philosophy of translation than I do who believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. However, I believe that the implications of a verbal-plenary view of inspiration should lead one to a word-for-word philosophy of translation.

Philip Stine wrote about Eugene Nida's beliefs: "Nida's approach put the focus of translation on communication and meaning. This approach assumed that writers used the forms of a source text to communicate their message, whether those forms consisted of words, grammatical structures, or literary genres. But this position appeared to challenge the view of Scripture that many translators from conservative theological backgrounds had always held (and many Bible translators came from such backgrounds). Most Bible translators and church leaders would affirm that in some way God provides the ultimate source of the Bible. But many also hold a view of how the Bible expresses words and forms. They see God directing in some way the writing and canonization process. For translators who believe that not only were the thoughts of the Bible inspired by God through the Holy Spirit but also the words themselves, a translation approach such as Nida's contradicts their theology because it puts a premium on the message rather than the form" (Let the Words Be Written, by Philip Stine, p. 59).

 

Weren't the originals though fully inspired and inerrant in all they contained, both in the OT/NT books?

Was the Lord really ivolved directly in an inspiration sense past those original documents, as in the canonization/final stage of the books?