1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dynamic equivalence in KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by natters, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Michelle,

    Ae foreign langauge translations from the original languages the Word of God. Or must they use the KJV?
    --------------------------------------------------

    Irrelevant to this issue, and a strawman at best.
    Because of this, I don't answer these type of questions.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  2. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Of course English language version(s) should be used, but it would enhance our understanding to study and learn the languages God chose to inspire His Word in, understand?
    --------------------------------------------------

    No. Only the Holy Spirit of truth enhances our understanding while we study what HE has already provided for us. In my opinion, the only reason one would turn to the Hebrew and Greek, is because they have doubted God's providence and preservation of his words or that they like to make others think they are wise, or desire followers to rely upon their every word, above that of the Lord's words, or that they are trying to decieve, or that they do not like what God has said, and refuse to see it so they can feel justified by their own understanding.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  3. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't or can't answer? :rolleyes:
     
  4. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Yes, God's Word is known today in English- but the only reason we have it in English is because of translation from the original languages that God provided it in. Moses, Paul, et al- weren't writing in English regardless of what your ehtnocentism blinds you from acknowledging.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    God has evidenced that he has preserved his words in our language, so as to keep those who only know English from those like today, who try to tell us different, and use the Greek and Hebrew languages as their foundation to alter/change the established words of God in our own language.

    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  5. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, Advanced revelation. Could you imagine the KJV translators refusing the Greek and Hebrew b/c they were humble? Could you imagine the translators refusing to do so b/c God providentially preserved His Word in the Geneva only?
    You are a pickler . :eek:
     
  6. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Like a spoiled three year old, you keep having the same old tantrums and shouting fits about what God has “ALREADY PROVIDED ME” but keep forgetting as you have been shown over and over again that He provided it through flawed and sinful men who spent hundreds of years correcting the “perfect” Word of God (from the original language manuscripts).
    --------------------------------------------------

    No, what you and many others are doing is trying to make many believers doubt what God has already provided, and by bringing up IRRELEVANT issues to defer from the real truth. You continually do this. Oh, and by the way, when I print in bold letters, I am not doing this to show I am yelling, like many others on here do. I do this to show my point in writing more clearly. No verbal influction is intended, and you are misunderstanding it, making a false accusation, rather than nicely asking why I do this.

    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  7. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    When is michelle or Askjo going to respond to the instances of dynamic equivalence in the KJV and the fact that these instances are not preservation of "words" (upon which KJV-only depends) but preservation of thoughts?
     
  8. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle wrote:
    Huh, I wasn't aware that you answer any type of questions.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I’m glad this is an opinion michelle. But might I offer to you the possibility that you that there could be another motive beyond doubt and/or deception and that it is the same as the Coverdale, Tyndale and the KJV translators and yes even some/many/most of the MV translators and that is to insure that there are no additions to or deletions from the Word of God.

    I know this will be a stretch for you michelle but it’s not only a possibility but a matter of fact. That the MV translators are wrong to rely so heavily upon Aleph/B is a matter of debate but motivation is another thing altogether which we cannot know for a certainty since we ourselves who are making the accusation are subject to the same passions as all flesh.

    So now we are to believe (according to your post above) that all who have looked to the Greek and Hebrew (as did the KJV translators) for translating or correction (as did the KJV translators) or modernization (as did the KJV translators) but not just the KJV translators but all the way back to the very first translations as the translators of the Itala, the Peshitto, the Vulgate and later the Coverdale Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, etc, etc, etc. That these have all “doubted God's providence and preservation of his words or that they like to make others think they are wise, or desire followers to rely upon their every word, above that of the Lord's words, or that they are trying to decieve, or that they do not like what God has said, and refuse to see it so they can feel justified by their own understanding.”

    I don’t think so.

    Nothing I have brought up is IRRELEVANT. Your infantile repetitions, accusations, and attempts at intimidation over and over again will not make those accusations true and I and others will continue to oppose you (Lord willing) so as long as you (metaphorically) throw your temper tantrums and spout (howbeit indirectly) the dogma of the radical KJVO
    Upper casing for SHOUTING is the standard here and elsewhere on the World Wide Web. Embolding (as I did above) is then standard for drawing attention to something important.

    BTW first you say that I am “misunderstanding it” then you say that I have made a “false accusation”. Technically it would only be a “false accusation” after you have told me that I am “misunderstanding it” but yet I continued to say it was shouting (which is a definite possibility).

    HankD
     
  10. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle, what's really at stake if you were to give up your belief in KJVOism? Does your faith require that you must be able to hold in your hands a perfect, word-for-word representation of God's Word? Would your faith crumble if you were to one day realize that the King James' Translators were fallible humans, just like you and I?

    As others (I believe Scott J did) have pointed out, the KJV translators were not Biblically qualified to claim inspiration of their work. The Bible specifies that it was apostles, prophets, and holy men of old who were inspired. The KJV translators would be the first to admit that that definition did not apply to themselves; and in fact they did precisely that in their Preface.

    Personally, my faith is not hinged on the unreasonable, unrealistic, irrational, unBiblical belief that God extended infallibility & inerrancy to a certain committee of 47 men in the early 17th-century.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV did not use D.E. because the KJV did not practice D.E. as a matter of policy.
     
  12. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said "The KJV did not use D.E. because the KJV did not practice D.E. as a matter of policy."

    To repeat an unanswered post from page 2:

    Open to almost any page of a 1611 reprint to see examples that the Translators themselves provide. There are 11 in Genesis 1 alone(!), and probably more in that chapter they didn't mention. For example, Gen 1:4 in the KJV ends with "and God divided the light from the darkness" but the Translators indicate that that is a dynamic equivalence, the Hebrew literally saying "and God divided between the light and between the darkness." Verse 11 has "grass" but the Translators said the literal Hebrew is "tender grass". Verse 20 has "open firmament" but the Translators indicate a dynamic equivalence by saying the literal Hebrew has "face of the firmament".

    Opening pages at random, the Translators indicate that Psalm 65:1 has "waiteth" but the literal Hebrew is "silent", verse 3 has "Iniquities" but the literal Hebrew has "words or matters of iniquities", verse 10 has "thou makest it soft with showers" but the literal Hebrew has "thou dissolvest it".

    Again at random, the Translators indicate that Jeremiah 2:14 has "spoiled" but the literal Hebrew has "become a spoil", verse 15 has "yelled" but the literal Hebrew is "gave out their voice", verse 24 has "her pleasure" while the literal Hebrew is "the desire of her heart", verse 27 has "their back" while the literal Hebrew has "the hinder part of the neck", verse 31 has "We are Lords" while the literal Hebrew is "we have dominion", verse 34 has "secret search" while the literal Hebrew is "digging".

    Preservation of "words"? Not in the examples above. KJV-onlyism is built on sand.

    Want more?
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle understands the difference between MVs and the KJV reflecting D.E. because Michelle and I know the D.E absolutely IGNORES the nature of the Bible. Michelle and I believe D.E. is most dangerous in MVs. I said KJV did not use it because the KJV did not practice it.
    Distortion! You refuse to get Michelle's point. I heard KJV critics said the KJV used D.E. all the time. But they defend D.E. because they IGNORED the nature of the Bible.
    D.E. is dangerous because D.E confuses translation with evangelism and teaching. TEV, for example, wrongly translated from "blood" to "death."

    You quoted: It also shows that "words" were not always what was preserved, sometimes the "thought" is what was preserved.

    D.E changes God's Words, subtituting man's thoughts for God's words.
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is 100% untrue. You know better. You have been shown (4 pages here replete with examples) that they DID use limited D.E.

    Is the "head in the sand" picture accurate of you as well as Michelle? I expect an honest answer from you, brother.
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Click here: God forbid
    Repeatedly, repeatedly!!! I heard that many times. You confuse between Easter and passover. Easter occurred AFTER the passover.
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because of 4,000 not inspired, not preserved words in the NASB. 4,000 words in NASB are infected.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But the inspired Greek word in EVERY Greek manuscript is NOT "easter" but "passover". Two totally different Greek words.
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who declared them "uninspired"? You're digging a deeper hole and we are giving you a chance here to divorce yourself from the extreme Michelic position.
     
  19. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Click here: God forbid</font>[/QUOTE]The lame excuse offered in your link boils down to this. Because other MVs can use dynamic equivalencies many times throughout their translations, it is alright to use dynamimc equivalency this once. How hypocritical!

    Neither God nor forbid are in the original. One must face these facts and admit them. It is not a literal translation here, but what is considered as dynamic equivalency. The best literal translation that I know of would be "May it not be." The duty of the translator is to translate. The duty of the reader is to read and study to show himself approved...rightly dividing the word of truth. The KJV translators, in this case, interpreted the text for us, not allowing us to study and find out that truth for ourselves. It is the same with any paraphrase.
    DHK
     
  20. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    pascha is not "Easter."
    ... I heard that many times. You confuse between Easter and passover. Easter occurred AFTER the passover.


    If Easter and Passover are different events, then why translate Passover as "Easter?"
     
Loading...