Dynamic equivalence in KJV

The KJV used dynamic equivalence?

God forbid!

 

The KJV used dynamic equivalence?

Would to God!

HankD

 

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

 

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.

 

The KJV does not practice D.E. as a matter of policy.

 

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.

 

--------------------------------------------------
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

 

Most MVs use D.E. -- thought for thought -- "Concept" theory or inspiration! Why do you favor "concept theory" rather than verbal plenary inspiration?

 

--------------------------------------------------
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

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

Amen and Amen!