How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence 2

Selections From The Book Of Isaiah

NIV on top -- and the HCSB below.

32:2 : each man
each

33:4 : man may pounce on it
people will swarm over it

40:6 : All men are like grass
All humanity is grass

44:13 : in the form of man,of man in all his glory
according to human likeness,like a beautiful person

51:17 : that makes men stagger
that causes people to stagger

51:18 : all the sons she bore ...all the sons she reared
all the children she has raised ... all the offspring she has brought up

51:20 : Your sons have fainted
Your children have fainted

54:13 : All your sons
all your children

57:13 : the man who makes me his refuge
whoever takes refuge in me

59:19 : men will fear the name of the Lord
They will fear the name of the Lord

60:11 : men may bring you the wealth of the nations
the wealth of the nations may be brought into you

63:8 : sons who will not be false to me
children who will not be disloyal

So what do you think of the renderings of the HCSB?It uses "optimal equivalence".Or do you prefer the "dynamic-equivalence" of the NIV?

 

Because it's true.

ISV : and didn't need anyone to tell him what people were like.For he himself knew what was in every person.

Does the Lord know only what is in the heart of males, or people in general?It's generic -- not gender-specific.The point of the passage is that the Lord knows what lies in the hearts of all people -- not just non-women.

"They change"? You're speaking of a change in English words -- not the original.

I wouldn't be so sure of that Marcia.The word "man" means 'male' to many folks.It's not a watering-down of God's Word to accurately communicate the message.The Lord honors that.The Greek doesn't have "man"."Man" is an English word.

Well,as I said the Greek doesn't have "man".

 

That's a rather unfortunate choice of words Rob.I'm sure you didn't mean it to come out that way.You're not trying to say that it's the Laodicean translation are you?(Rev. 3:15):laugh:

A more appropriate way of describing it is to say that it's neither fish nor fowl.(But the HCSB,ISV and NET Bible joins company with it in this respect.)

I agree.Without thinking things through folks have wrongly classified the NIV/TNIV by putting them in the dynamic category.They need to examine the real dynamic versions before they do their broad-brushing.

The man is still with us.He just turned 94 in November.

 

Ah ha.John 3:16 in the understanding of many English speakers has been compromised by inferior wording by the KJV tradition.It's not a matter of God sooo loving the world.The optimally equivalent HCSB makes it clear:"For God loved the world in this way:He gave His One and Only Son,so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

Sometimes things seemingly so simple ("easy to understand")have to be looked at again with some scrutiny.

 

Yes, David Alan Black -- the highly respected New Testament scholar.He has been on the ISV Bible translation team.That version received only 3 of 12 possible points per the OP.

 

"Inferior wording" is simply not true. "Dated wording" possibly.

 

Sometimes I wonder if translation isn't all about self rather than a given verse has missed the point.

I find nothing wrong with John 3:16 in KJV language.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What is the point of this discussion at this time. Are we discussing whether the NIV and TNIV should be considered Dynamic Equivalence or Functional Equivalent translations. I personally believe that they are. But I also don't believe that this is an issue.

 

Not a good translation:


The Only Begotten Son
Why was it important for the Holy Spirit who inspired these five great verses to stress that the Lord Jesus was the incarnate only begotten Son of God? Many modern English translations of the New Testament apparently do not consider it important, for they render the phrase merely as "only son." It is so rendered in the Living Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the God's Word translation, the Twentieth Century New Testament, the New Living Translation, the Moffatt, Goodspeed, and Williams translations, and many others. The New International Version renders it "one and only son." There are still a few, however--the best-known being the New American Standard and the New King James--that render it correctly (as in the King James Version) as "only begotten Son."
The Greek word for "only begotten" is monogenes, the very form of which clearly denotes "only generated." As monotheism connotes only one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated--or, more simply, only begotten. It does not mean "one," or even "one and only." It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek original) called the "only" son of God.
The fact is, that to call Him the only Son of God would make the Bible contradict itself, for He is not the only Son of God, and certainly not the "one and only" Son of God. Angels are several times called the sons of God (e.g., Job 38:7) since they had no fathers, being directly created by God. Likewise, Adam was called the son of God (Luke 3:38), because he was directly created. The same applies even to fallen angels (Genesis 6:2), and even to Satan (Job 1:6), because they also were created beings. The term is also used in a spiritual sense, of course, for those who have become "new creations" in Christ Jesus by faith (II Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10; etc.). In this sense, we also are "sons of God" (e.g., I John 3:2) by special creation?not physically but spiritually.
But it is never applied in this sense to Christ, for He is not a created son of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists teach), but a begotten Son of God--in fact, the only begotten Son of God. He never had a beginning, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). In His prayer to the Father in the upper room, He spoke of "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5).
In that wonderful Old Testament Christmas prophecy about His coming human birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), we are told that His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." His human body was, indeed, "brought forth" from "she which travaileth" (Micah 5:3). But long before that, He had been everlastingly going forth from "the bosom of the Father." As noted in John 1:18, He was still "in the bosom of the Father," even while He was on Earth manifesting the Father.
These truths are beyond our full comprehension, of course, for they are all part of the great mystery of the Tri-une Godhead. Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), for as He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).




http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_godsonlybegottenson/

 

Didn't the characterization of a (any) translation as "optimal equivalence" begin with the HCSB in their own "coined" definition of this phrase and characterization of translational philosophy and style? This is a bit less than a dis-interested objective characterization, to say the least, IMO.

Additionally, didn't any idea of "formal" vs. "dynamic" equivalence arise with Dr. Nida, to whom John of Japan has repeatedly referenced?

I suggest that there is no such thing even possible as any strictly "word-for-word" translation of the Bible into any other language, for grammar will simply not allow this. An example here would be two English words of Lord and God (just as the two Greek words of "Theos" and "Kurios") to render the three Hebrew words, of Adonai, Elohim, and Yahweh", for example. Or the lack of a single tense in English to exactly correspond to the Greek perfect or aorist tenses, for a NT example.

One might do a slight bit better in the "thought-for-thought" translation department, but even this is difficult.

For example, how do you convey the idea or thought of "snow" or 'ice' to one who has never been outside the jungles of the Amazon valley, an actual instance that arose for Rachel Saint, Dayuma, Elizabeth Eliot, and Co. in attempting to translate the Scriptures into the language of the Auca/Hourani/Waodani natives some years ago? "Hard water" for "ice" seems to leave a bit to be desired, IMO.

Personally, I would say as much "word-for-word" as possible, combined with as much "thought-for-thought" as necessary in order to most accurately render the text. Exactly how much is necessary or even ideal, is the 'rub' however.

Ed

 

Did you know that the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and a translation that one KJV defender at this forum identified as being a "great" Bible, has "he gave his only son" at John 3:16? In his 1526 and 1534 New Testaments, William Tyndale had also translated it "his only son." The 1537 Matthew's Bible also has the same rendering at John 3:16 as Tyndale's. Thus, three of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have this rendering.

 

So? It's still not a good rendering. :tongue3:

 

Whether or not "monogenes" is a good rendering in the NIV, among others is a legitimate question, but I suggest this response above misses the point I believe Rippon was trying to make with "sooo" (sic) referring to "in this 'manner'" of love, as contrasted "in this 'degree'" of love, which one might infer from a casual or even a careful reading of the verse in the KJV. John of Japan also has noted this emphasis, FTR.

BTW, the Son is not in any manner "generated" but is, was, and always has been eternal, with "Son" referring to the God-declared 'rank' if you will, of the three persons in the triune Godhead.

Ed

 

(earlier on another thread, and replying to me, FTR)

May I describe you as KJVO now?

Ed

 

Why? Just because I said that was a bad rendering? If you were to read the article it stated that the NASB and the NKJV rendered it "begotten'. You guys sure are eager to label people.

 

Yes,in the early 17th century (and perhaps longer)it meant "in this way or manner"however,most people who quote the verse in the KJV style do not understand it that way.They think the word "so" is speaking of the intensity of God's love.

 

You're right.Back then it was understandable.It was not inferior.But it's considerably dated now.

 

How do you KNOW that, Rippon? Did you take a survey? You are always posting your opinions as facts.