How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence 2

You are correct, and I offer humble apologies! :wavey:

 

Thanks for your comments, John! I think "man" works best, especially in light of John 3.1 and other references which are rendered "man" in that passage.

 

"He did not not need human testimony...".It's generic.No PC required.It means people -- both genders.

Update: My MLB (The Modern Language Bible, Revised Edition of 1969) has "and did not need any one's evidence about people,for He knew what was in the human heart." The MLB is quite the conservative production -- no PC or feminist agenda there.'People" is an appropriate word contextually -- with no sinister intentions.

 

Thanks Marcia.

 

"Man" in John 3:1 makes sense, but not in 2:25.

If you're going on what sounds comfortable to your ear, then find. But what sounds good to your ear is no true test of how a word should be translated.

Context rules the day!

 

As a former feminist, I'll say "amen" to that!

 

But so many translators do have "man," and even the NET Bible keeps it that way. Could it not be true that the intention was for it to be "man?"

 

If the other translation mean generic "man," then that's kool for me.

Now if the NET is being gender specific at 2:25, then I don't get it.

 

It's just older English conventional speech -- nothing more than that.

NRSV: and needed no one to testify about anyone;for he himself knew what was in everyone.

REB : and had no need of evidence from others about anyone,for he himself could tell what was in people.

NJB : he never needed evidence about anyone;he could tell what someone had within.

 

I just consulted the NET. It uses "man" for both genders, according to the textual note.

The TNIV is in good company after all, though the wording is not my preference. :thumbsup:

 

Of course the 84 NIV is referenced here. But stiil it proves a point I have been making all along. ---The ESV and HCSB both used more inclusive language than the 84 NIV and the old RSV of 1971 I believe.

 

So what if this thread is more than 4 years old?

I should have used a smiley-face after my last question.

The HCSB here and in the last post that I rehashed have very acceptable renderings. I have no complaint at all with them. They are superior to that of the the older NIV. I just think it is inconsistent of folks to drum up the old feminist drivel agenda screed against the 2011 NIV when the HCSB and ESV also have generous helpings of inclusive language that is very warranted by the text.

 

Since the 2011 edition was pretty much the Tniv , would that also apply towards it?

And how dynamic was the 1984 Niv edition, under same verses?

 

In the OP JoJ tried to establish that the TNIV was a dynamic-equivalent Bible translation. Of course it uses dynamic equivalence; but it is not one as such.

JoJ attempted to demonstrate his theory by using twelve examples contained in Matthew 8.

When I searched out some Bible versions,here is what I found:

The NKJV and Darby scored 9 points each.
The ESV agreed 8 times.
The NASBU and HCSB each scored 6 points.
The Modern Language Bible had agreement on five occasions.
The Norlie had 5 and a half points.
The Weymouth got 4 points.
The ISV and NLT scored only 3 points each.

I had listed three other versions, but itemizing their scores when 7 versions would have received failing grades at the hands of JoJ --I just didn't feel it was worth it.

One would have thought that since he agrees with optimal equivalence,that he would have been disappointed with the results of the HCSB (and the ISV too for good measure).

 

Some things to ponder.

 

The way old ways of describing translational methods should be put to rest as demonstrated above.

 

The NASB95 and the TNIV readings don't seem to vary that much. Aw,that isn't fair. The TNIV is supposed to be much worse. What's wrong? Did you skew things? How can someone get their hate on for the TNIV (and the 2011 version) with you showing honest comparsions?

:laugh: