Does Ambiguity challenge Dynamic Equivalencnce?

How about that quote is fiction. How about providing an example where DE is necessary.
You do not answer my questions then ask if the cat has my tongue.

Folks, Rippon advocates ambiguity, then asserts he didn't. Go figure.

Lets go over them.
1) Rippon asserts the NIV is not a self proclaimed DE. There I quote from the Preface that it translates according to the author's thought. Strike one.

2) Then, shucking and jiving, Rippon posts that the NIV did not use that exact expression (DE). LOL Strike two.

3) Rippon posts: Sometimes the reason for maintaining ambiguity is that there may be mutifold meanings suggested by the rendering. reducing it down to something thta is easy to understand may actually mute the meaning that the author was intending."
Then he posts he did not advocate ambiguity. Strike three.

Notice the lack of any content. I presented about one half dozen verses where I showed how ambiguity was introduced into the text. The NIV2011 introduces ambiguity in to gender specific renderings over 2000 times, making it a treasonous translation. Nuff said. And to restate the premise, "son" could be changed to "child" with a footnote "Lit. son"
to both present the word meaning of the author and the thought (in the opinion of the translator) of the author. DE is not necessary.

 

The bottom line is none of the modern translations are actually faithful to the underlying text, but the NASB and ESV and NKJV are far more faithful than the NIV2011. HCSB does a pretty good job of avoiding the egregious errors of the NIV yet often times presents the actual message with more clarity than any of the so called more literal translations.