Dynamic equivalence in KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by natters, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said "Mis-Information! The KJV did NOT use D.E."

    Then why did the translators of the KJV not only admit that they did, but also indicated many such instances?
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV used dynamic equivalence?

    God forbid!
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] Good one!
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    The KJV used dynamic equivalence?

    Would to God!

    HankD
     
  5. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    All versions will have some dynamic equivalence because it is impossible to do an exact word for word translation.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    God save the king! We have "the image of" more KJVO doubletalk coming on!

    Declare Him:All versions will have some dynamic equivalence because it is impossible to do an exact word for word translation.

    Right!

    But the erudite KJVOs criticize other versions for using DE! This is found in Ed's catalogue of KJVO double standards.
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV does not practice D.E. as a matter of policy.
     
  8. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo,
    You said that the KJV did not use D.E and now you say that the KJV does not practice D.E as policy! Which is it? You can not have it both ways.
     
  9. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said "The KJV does not practice D.E. as a matter of policy."

    Irrelevant. The fact that it DOES contain dynamic equivalence on occasion is enough to show your original claim to be false. It also shows that "words" were not always what was preserved, sometimes the "thought" is what was preserved.
     
  10. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Askjo,
    You said that the KJV did not use D.E and now you say that the KJV does not practice D.E as policy! Which is it? You can not have it both ways.
    --------------------------------------------------

    You all are being abosolutely ridiculous! You all KNOW very well a translation requires this. The FACT in this issue, is that the modern versions use Dynamic Equivalence as the standard, rather than the exception like the KJB, as was Askjo's point. You all so much enjoying avoiding the real serious issue, by focusing upon irrelevant and nit-picky things. Childish games. We are commanded to grow and mature in Christ Jesus, not remain as children.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    michelle said "You all are being abosolutely ridiculous! You all KNOW very well a translation requires this."

    Askjo said the KJV did not use it.

    michelle said "The FACT in this issue, is that the modern versions use Dynamic Equivalence as the standard, rather than the exception like the KJB, as was Askjo's point."

    That was Askjo's second, self-contradicting point. And my point is that even when the KJV uses it as an "exception" (even though there are a lot of them), just ONE is enough to PROVE that preservation of "words" did not happen wherever it was used - which is directly opposed to the foundational claim upon which KJV-onlyism is based. Where the KJV uses dynamic equivalency is PROOF of where it differs in words from everything prior to it, especially including the Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated.

    The existence of dynamic equivalence in the KJV is the conclusive death-blow to word-perfect preservation and perfection - and both you and Askjo have admitted and agreed dynamic equivalency occurs in the KJV.
     
  12. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most MVs use D.E. -- thought for thought -- "Concept" theory or inspiration! Why do you favor "concept theory" rather than verbal plenary inspiration?
     
  13. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo, I don't favour "concept theory", and don't change the subject: 1. you have made contradictory statements, and 2. any D.E. in the KJV is PROOF that "words" were not preserved. Both you and KJV-onlyism have been shown to be full of holes at the same time, and you're worried about me? Deal with the points made, rather than changing the subject.
     
  14. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Askjo, I don't favour "concept theory", and don't change the subject: 1. you have made contradictory statements, and 2. any D.E. in the KJV is PROOF that "words" were not preserved. Both you and KJV-onlyism have been shown to be full of holes at the same time, and you're worried about me? Deal with the points made, rather than changing the subject.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Tell that to all the generations of believers prior to the modern versions and to this very day who have and do believe this. Your proof is not proof at all, but your mere OPINION. The evidence is that God has preserved this in our language for hundreds of years. It would do you well to take your focus off the Hebrew and Greek languages, and focus upon your own native language, to which God has provided you with.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The concept theory DEMANDS thoughts for thoughts by using D.E. in any modern versions.
    What words were not preserved in the KJV? Show me.
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    michelle said:

    You all are being abosolutely ridiculous! You all KNOW very well a translation requires this.

    A translation doesn't "require" that the Greek me genoito, "may it not be," be rendered as "God forbid."

    A translation doesn't "require" that ancient units of measure, currency, official titles, and the like be translated as their British equivalents. That is, a denarius need not become a "penny"; stadia need not become "furlongs." A satrap is not a "lieutenant," and, of course, pascha is not "Easter."

    So why did the translators do that? They wanted to form the same impression in the readers' mind that would have formed in the text's original audience. That is the very definition of "dynamic equivalence."
     
  17. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well the NASB also uses D.E. as an exception intstead of the standard. The ASV also uses D.E. as an exception instead of a standard. Do you need more examples? If you do just tell me and I'll give you some more.
     
  18. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you have proof that God inspired a version of His Word in English? And no I want take my focus off the Hebrew and Greek languages that is where God preserved His Words not in English.
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Michelle has been asked that over and over and offered only her syrupy piety. No answer.

    Appreciate the good explanation of Formal Equivalence as BASIC and Dynamic Equivalence as LIMITED and how it is used in many wonderful English translations.

    I for one seek versions of Formal Equivalence as the basic tool, as I believe the WORDS were inspired, not just the general thoughts.
     
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Amen and Amen! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...