Does Dynamic Equivalency cause.....

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by McCree79, Sep 30, 2015.

  1. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    33
    From Leyland Ryken, who cites Jack Collins(also expository preacher) of Covent Seminary.

    "...recalls his increasing uneasiness about the discrepancy between what his parishioners translations said, and what he knew the original said. The more he corrected their translations, the more he suspected that his parishioners would come to distrust the reliability of the Bible".

    Ryken is a stronger support of Formal Equivalence. While he doesn't endorse a individual translation, he makes clear he like NASB, NKJV, KJV and ESV. He gives many reasons why we shouldn't be using Dynamic Equivalency translations, atleast as our main text. One of the reasons is that he believes Dynamic Equivalency will and is causing church members to question reliability in the Bible. Is he over reacting or does he have a point? He gives numerous other reasons not to use Dynamic Equivalency. This was just one reason. I will address one other theory of his in another post.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  2. Reformed

    Reformed
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    57
    I am not a rabid anti-dynamic equivalency proponent. I think it is fine for personal bible study. However I would not advocate it as a first line text in serious scholarship. The additional interpretative step is something a pastor or theologian should be doing on their own. D.E. does lead to some lazy scholarship IMHO.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dave Brunn wrote: "There are places in every English version where the translators chose to omit a particular Hebrew or Greek word rather than to reflect it literally in their translations. An example of this is the Hebrew word nepel, which is most often translated 'soul.' The Hebrew text of Job 36:14 includes this word, but most English versions left it out, including many of those that are considered word-for-word translations" (One Bible, Many Versions, p. 107).

    At Job 36:14, the 1560 Geneva Bible and Young's Literal Translation begins the verse with "Their soul" while the KJV begins it with "They."
     
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Does translation using thought for thought translation philosophy nurture distrust the reliability of the Bible? Only when confronted with differing statements as to what the underlying text actually says. So if you preach it as it reads in English, then the errant interpretations would be hard for those listening to detect.

    As far as Job 36:14, the main text of the NASB leaves "soul" out but the literal footnote has "Their soul dies". Thus word for word translations come closest to presenting accurately the underlying text.
     
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    This is an invalid comparison, since nephesh (nepel) is polysemous, with many meanings. "They" is a perfectly valid literal rendering.

    BDB's lexicon says, "1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
    1a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
    1b) living being
    1c) living being (with life in the blood)
    1d) the man himself, self, person or individual
    1e) seat of the appetites
    1f) seat of emotions and passions
    1g) activity of mind
    1h) activity of the will
    1i) activity of the character"
     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,618
    Likes Received:
    44
    For those interested in a fair representation of the KJB:

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Serious scholars should be looking beyond the English text anyway.

    The Sunday morning Bible study at our church has quite a few newer, but older Christians who appreciate the NIV for being clear and understandable. We use in the class as our primary text.

    Somewhat contrary to your statement, the dynamic equivalency of the NIV encourages the student to compare versions, a practice that I strongly encourage.

    Even the best literal translation is weak in spots.

    This past week we examined 1 Samuel 3 concentrating on the Hebrew word, davar, WORD.

    It's amazing how many times it is used, and how few times it is translated such - not without reason but at a detriment to a fuller understanding the passage.

    Rob
     
    #7 Deacon, Oct 1, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 1, 2015
  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,501
    Likes Received:
    454
    It's the same for the NKJV.
     
  9. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Good discussion on the use of "soul" in various translations on an old thread called, "The HCSB has no soul"[LINK]

    Rob
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Here are some more uses of the same word: nefesh [נֶפֶשׁ]

    1. throat Is 5:14; — 2. neck Ps 105:18; — 3. breath Job 41:13,
    Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (242).


    (5) With suff. נפְשִׁי, נַפְשְׁךָ etc.; it is sometimes I myself, thou thyself …
    Ps. 3:3, “many say of me (to my soul לְנַפְשִׁי), there is no help for him in God.”
    Ps. 11:1, “why say ye to me (my soul לְנַפְשִׁי) flee as a bird to your mountain?”
    Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. (560).


    In these two instances, the KJV used the word in the second sense.

    Isaiah 5:14a [נַפְשָׁהּ]

    Therefore hell hath enlarged herself,
    And opened her mouth without measure:
    AV 1873

    Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite
    and opened its mouth beyond measure,
    ESV

    Therefore Sheol enlarges its throat
    and opens wide its enormous jaws,
    HCSB

    Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat
    and opened its mouth without measure;
    NASB95

    ********************************


    Psalm 105:18 [נַפְשׁ ]

    Whose feet they hurt with fetters:
    † He was laid in iron:
    [note † Heb. his soul came into iron.]
    AV 1873


    They afflicted his feet with fetters,
    He himself was laid in irons;
    NASB95

    His feet were hurt with fetters;
    his neck was put in a collar of iron;
    ESV

    They tortured his legs with shackles,
    His neck was put in iron,
    Alter

    Rob
     
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Thanks. I took a look.
     
  12. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    I can see why maybe some really died-in-wool-KJVO-advocates wouldn't want to use a "dynamic-equivalent, modern-day, non-AV-1611-translation."

    But, OTOH, much to the chagrin of these people, being that---contrary to some of these "disciples of 'St. Peter Ruckman," et.al.---English IS still a living language; in fact, experts in linguistics will tell you that English is probably the 21st century's largest "2nd Language."

    That being said, for the life of me, I can't see why some of these KJV "Formal Equivalent" diehards demand that any/all post-1611 Bibles in any translations in any language in any part of today's terra firma be "cast into the fire as the work(s) of the devil and his demons."

    Yes, I've actually heard those words from people who, for some mysterious set of illogical reasons claim that, "Well, don't you know that the "Authorized Version" ["Authorized by whom is one of their classic unanswerable questions, most of whom will say, 'Well, it's God Himself who 'Authorized' it!!']."

    As many have already posted, maybe a dynamic-equivalent Bible wouldn't be the best choice for a "pew Bible" if the bulk of one's congregation grew up on the KJV.

    OTOH, if one's congregation is made up primarily of refugees from foreign lands where English isn't their native tongue, or of very poorly educated people who may live in the USA, but are or were products of a very poorly (or seldom, or never used) implemented "Language Arts"---Code for little or no really solid English in K - 12 schools that, unfortunately are on the increase, not only in the inner-city parts of cities who, as a whole, are dying themselves, but also in other basically rural communities, or maybe those where good Christian---or Charter---schools haven't yet been established and running, maybe a dynamic equivalent Bible might just be a good help.

    I'm a member of Lighthouse Christian Fellowship (LCF) that's located in a part of "Greater Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County, TN." As such, we do have a smattering of refugees from nations where English isn't their "1st Language."

    The LCF elders haven't made it "official," but most of the "Preaching" Elders (who presently number about 4) use the ESV, which, IMHO, seems to be somewhere between a formal and dynamic translation.

    Personally---while I could live with the ESV---I prefer the NLTse (the 2nd {and very much revised} edition) of the "New Living Translation" that's published by Tyndale with a copyright of 2004.

    Pease understand that I'm not a KJV-hater, as some of my earlier remarks in this post might lead some folks to get that impression.

    My "signature" at the bottom of this, as well as the almost 900 posts I've made on BB is a direct quotation from the KJV.

    Moreover, the language of the KJV---which some say is a sort-of 2nd generation language of William Shakespeare has a certain "flow" that, IMHO, just isn't matched by any other Bible with which I'm familiar.

    I received Jesus Christ as my personal Savior by a gentleman who showed me from his own KJV how to put my trust in Jesus Christ---which I did way back in April 1966.

    Four of the five local Baptist churches of which I've been a member of from that day in April, 1966---and, to a large extent, LCF still employs the KJV, were all ones that respected the work of the committee of the KJV---something that took almost 70 or so years to accomplish in its own native England.

    The KJV was probably the only one that men such as Jonathan Edwards preached from during the "First Great Awakening."

    It was the one from which most all of our nation's quoted in most of their best-known speeches---President Lincoln surely was a student of the KJV, and he often used its metaphors in many of his most memorable speeches which is evident in his Inaugural Address to Congress in April, 1861, where he warned Congress that "a house divided against itself shall not stand" (See Matt. 12:25 & Mk. 3:25.).

    President Woodrow Wilson's (POTUS 1913 - 1919) father was a pastor as well as a seminary professor who, according to Wilson himself, instilled many Biblical principles while he sat under his father's leadership---all of which were based in his own KJV.

    As liberal as he was in a lot of things, FDR authorized---with his own "signed" short encouraging statement from their Commander-In-Chief of the US military to the men and women---who entered WW2 a pocket-sized KJV Bible.

    I even wrote an extensive paper over 40 years ago entitled "Baptism" in the KJV that defended the KJV's translators use of the word "Baptism" as an appropriate word for their contemporary 17th century English readers.

    So, please understand that, although it's over 400 years old, I treasure---but don't worship---the many KJV's that fill almost two long shelves of my library.

    As I've posted earlier, since English is still living language, and, as such has undergone lots of changes, e.g.:

    1) Psalm 86:17b --- In the first "giant print" KJV I bought in 1968 at the US Military Chaplain's Bible Bookstore in Heidelberg, (West) Germany, that KJV reads, "....because thou, LORD, hast holpen me, and comforted me."

    When was the last time you told anybody that you were in the process of "hopen(-ing") somebody?

    or, even better,

    2) James 2:3 --- "....And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing ...."

    Don't you think that this expression might need a little explaining, especially for those people who aren't very receptive to homo$eXual men?

    Finally, what would a missionary to, say, the sub-Saharan nation of Nigeria, a nation of at least half of whose almost 800 million population claim Islam as their religion do when he comes to passages such as Isaiah 1:1, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;"

    "White as WHAT?" "What in the world is this SNOW?

    I'm sure that our BB friend John of Japan could probably tell us of a few occasions where he probably had to make some alterations to the formal text of whatever English Bible he may use as a basis for the text of the Bible that he probably uses.

    If that's the case, more than likely somebody somewhere in the US has charged our dear BB missionary John of Japan as being one who willingly participates in committing the curse about which the Apostle John wrote in Revelation 22:18-19.

    To summarize, IMHO, I think it all comes down to the reason(s) why a formal---or a dynamic---Bible would be the optimum choice for an individual depends upon the various purpose(s) that he/she is intending to use that particular Bible.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    The so called "readability" that is used to excuse the dynamic equivalent is way over blown.
     
  14. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    33
    Rev, and any other preachers.....

    If you preach from, or the Majority of your church members use translations such as NIV or NLT, do you find yourself correcting the English to match more closely to the Greek or Hebrew word? If you do, do you feel it has a negative effect of the congregations view of the reliability of the Bible?

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    No, they are aware there are issues regarding translating languages.
     
  16. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    33
    As a Pastor did you teach the "issues" or do you feel most congregations have a feel for this?

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    I teach about difficulties in translations. They come up when teaching and different people have different versions with what often appears to them to be different words.
     
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    These are two different issues. KJVO people don't want any translation other than the KJV, no matter what the translation method was. They reject the ESV and its essentially literal method, and the NKJV and Holman with their optimal equivalence method.
    This is the one argument often used for dynamic equivalence. However, to translate "snow" as anything but "snow" is to dumb down the Bible to the culture of the target readers. The problem with that is that nationals (a missionary term for the people a missionary ministers to) tend to get educated. They will then lose confidence in their Bible translation because the translators didn't have enough respect for them to translate what the Bible actually said. Saharan desert tribes people are quite intelligent enough to grasp the snow concept.
    When ministering in Japanese (or English), my habit is to always go back to the original Hebrew and Greek, not any translation. Not being satisfied with the Bibles available in Japanese, I am the lead translator for a new Japanese NT version from the Greek (not the English :saint:). We are now around 65% done with the final draft, and have published John and Romans in a pamphlet, 86,000 of which have been sent to Japan and are now being distributed.

    It would have to be a very compelling reason for me to use a DE translation--and I can't think of any! :tongue3:
     
  19. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Did God authorize Dynamic Equivalency by using it in the way the New Testament quotes the Old?

    Rob
     
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    No, because reader response is not in view in those quotes, but rather the conveying of eternal truth.
     

Share This Page

Loading...