Does Ambiguity challenge Dynamic Equivalencnce?

I expect Rippon is just trying to create work for me because for him not to know DE's "equivalence in audience response" as opposed to FE"s equivalence in message is central to the debate is mind boggling.

"a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalence is based upon "the principle of equivalent effect" (Rieu and Phillips, 1954). In such a translation one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship (mentioned in Chapter 7), that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message."

Translators have a choice, say something vague that could be understood in various ways, or say something clearly that would be understood in one way. Based on belief that God word is meant to be understood in one way, translators are obligated to adhere to the fundamental goals of accuracy and clarity.

As I have said numerous times, when a variant rendering is viable, the translators should put the most likely variant in the main text and put the viable alternate(s) in the footnotes. And certainly they should not be ambiguous to accommodate political correctness or factions within the body. That would turn translators into ear ticklers.

God Bless

 

Why repeat what has been addressed? For the zillonth time, where viable variants exist, put the most probable in the main text and footnote the alternate(s).

No one is saying the translation must be perfect, but it sure should be as close to perfect as is possible. Clarity and accuracy are essential to proper translation. Those that shift from the clarity of the text to ambiguity to appease the audience are ear ticklers of the first order!!

 

One Another

Have you noticed "one another" in the New Testament. Is this an ambiguous Greek word that seems to refer to everybody in general? Or does it refer to some subset of people that are distinctive in some manner, i.e. knowledgeable, authoritative, part of a select group?

Lets consider Ephesians 5:21. Does "one another" refer to just anybody or just another believer? Or to some other believers selected for a purpose. What does the context tell us.

Our options appear to be: Be subject to everyone else, like a doormat in a mall, or be subject to those in authority. And a nuance might be being subject to those in authority within the body of Christ. The context is similar to Colossians 3:16-17 with the notable difference of teaching and admonishing vice being subject to one another. However Paul teaches that authority comes through those ordained by God, so when a person submits to "godly authority" they are doing so in the fear of the disfavor of Christ.

Therefore the most probable intended meaning in Ephesians 5:21 is subjecting ourselves to godly authority within the body of Christ.

On the other hand, if our understanding is "well it might mean this, or it might mean that and there is no way to be sure" we will find it easy to not live by every word of God.

In summary the result of being filled with the Spirit includes 5 results as listed by Paul, the last is submitting to godly authority out of respect for Christ as the source of that authority.

God Bless

 

Folks, I documented the difference in translation philosophy between DE and FE. Rippon responds with denial. Nuff said.

 

I once discussed my choice of a bible version (NASB) with a missionary who had spent his life translating scripture into the language of some Africans. I told his I could understand the NASB a lot better than the KJV. He said the most important thing, and this was from his heart, is to read a bible you can understand.

Those that say we must sacrifice accuracy for clarity are false teachers. And those who say we must sacrifice clarity for accuracy are false teachers. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I am no fan of the idea of shifting, changing, moving the message so today's audience can relate to it, as the 1 century audience related to the actual message of God.

 

Ambiguity does not challenge DE, every translation philosophy should have accuracy and clarity as fundamental goals. To the extent DE sacrifices accuracy for clarity, it is a treasonous translation.

 

Lets consider the issue of figures of speech. Consider Romans 1:3. The NIV reads: regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,

But the supposedly more literal versions read : Considering His Son, being born of the seed of David according to the flesh,"

So we have the dynamic shift of the NIV away from the figure of speech, born of the seed of David according to the flesh, to "as to His earthly life was a descendant of David.

An allusion is a literary device where something said is calculated to bring to mind so other saying, passage, book or even movie. Thus Jesus being of the seed of David brings to mind the promise that the seed of David one day will sit on David's throne forever. Or that Eve's seed will crush the Serpent.

Bottom line, by at least leaving a remnant of the figure of speech used in the allusion, a part of the message is preserved rather than obliterated.

So it this example, dynamically altering the figure of speech, seem to do collateral damage to the the actual message.

 

Bottom line, by at least leaving a remnant of the figure of speech used in the allusion, a part of the message is preserved rather than obliterated. DE's problem is not that the underlying text is somewhat ambiguous in places, but that it changes the message, rather than footnote the interpretation.

 

Remember when the service read the word in a language the listeners could not understand, making them totally dependent on what the speaker said was being read. DE makes the same error by a different mechanism. Here the message is not read, only the interpretation, making the readers of DE translations dependent on the translators. How can they check what these "spirits" are saying against scripture, if the only scripture they have has already been edited to read as the "spirits" say. Treason pure and simple.

 

Folks, DE is not the way to properly translate. The message should not be changed so that it bridges the historical gap. I have demonstrated this truth using several lines of evidence, and those advocating ambiguity and interpretation beyond the minimum simply offer denial. Nuff said.

But to restate the obvious, does "as to his earthly life" send the same message as "according to the flesh." Could not "as to his earthly life" be understood as referring to how Jesus lived His life, rather than He was the root and branch of David, referring to His blood line with allusion to old testament passages.

Weymouth does a good job of translating the message, but the NIV misses completely, yet even the Weymouth loses the allusion to the OT passages concerning God's promises and prophecies with regard to David.

 

As for the complete fiction presented in post #56, please provide a verse that cannot be translated "word meaning for word meaning" and then restructured to provide clarity in English. The premise that DE is necessary needs to be supported by example. Make my day. (allusion used to double down on the message.)

Those statements that relate to 1 century culture (or the existing culture when written to the initial audience) sometimes lose meaning because we do not "get" the inference.
But study notes can bridge the historical gap, rather than needing to alter the message.