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. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Your link is simply a long rationale as to why DE is okay in this case. This is definitely a weak point in the KJVO theory. "DE is wrong unless we say it is okay."
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "God forbid".

    Also "would to God" several times in the OT and in 1 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 11:1 where the word "God' is not present in the original language text.

    To present a common exclamation as a prayer invoking God, is definitely DE.

    HankD
     
  3. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said "Michelle and I know the D.E absolutely IGNORES the nature of the Bible."

    When the KJV uses it, are those places ignoring the nature of the Bible?

    Askjo "I said KJV did not use it because the KJV did not practice it."

    The KJV does use it, and does practice it, just not as much as some other Bibles. D.E. is not a "yes/no" issue, it is always "yes" with a question of how much.

    Askjo said "Distortion! You refuse to get Michelle's point."

    No, I got michelle's point. Michelle's point was irrelevant, and attempted to change the subject.

    Askjo said "D.E. is dangerous because D.E confuses translation with evangelism and teaching."

    Then why does it occur sometimes in the KJV?

    Askjo said "D.E changes God's Words, subtituting man's thoughts for God's words."

    Then why does it occur sometimes in the KJV?

    Askjo said "Click here: God forbid"

    Yes, that link is an explanation of why dynamic equivalency is justified! Which side of this argument are you taking???

    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?
     
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You just don't understand because you don't understand...

    Abstract From The Ruckman Conspiracy RL Hymers Jr. 1989
    Found online at : http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_V/RuckamnHymers.htm

    Scroll down a page or two to have reference to the whole book.

    HankD
     
  5. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Your link is simply a long rationale as to why DE is okay in this case. This is definitely a weak point in the KJVO theory. "DE is wrong unless we say it is okay."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Rather, the weak thinking is of the modernist, liberal mv loving/conding rationale. The FACT is that God has preserved (or as you all like to say "pickled") this to be "God forbid". DE was only used as the exception, rather than the standard to which is different from the methods of the modern versions. And the KJB mirrors the correct texts, unlike the modern versions. You say the KJVO position is weakened by this. Ney, rather the KJB position stands as it is, for it is the truth, and it has been and still are the words of God in the English language. Stop trying to condone those things that you should be rejecting and using these little irrelevant things, and make them seem as if they are the same thing as in the mv's, to which they ARE NOT.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Right, it is irrelevant when you determine it is irrelevant. Got it.
     
  7. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Askjo said "Michelle and I know the D.E absolutely IGNORES the nature of the Bible."

    When the KJV uses it, are those places ignoring the nature of the Bible?
    --------------------------------------------------


    Doesn't matter, as God has preserved it as such for generations of believers, so this must be the correct rendering. Otherwise, God would have seen to it that it was changed soon thereafter, not 350 years later. For you to tell me it doesn't belong there, because the Greek or Hebrew doesn't have it, is moot to me today. God is NOT DOING A NEW THING today. God obviously did not think it was wrong then. Your futile attempts to try to show that the KJB has errors, are only showing forth your lack of faith in God and his power and providence concerning His words, the evidence He has provided it, and His care and provision concerning His faithful believers. You also are showing forth hypocracy, when you stand for the majority of the modern versions that have gone WAY BEYOND the appropriate use of DE in translation and condone it, and then lay claim to errors in the KJB to justify this aborhent standard method used by the mv's very inappropriately and beyond excuse for it. Go ahead, keep you commentaries of God's words and believe they are the Holy Bible. It will only lead to your downfall.


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

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Askjo said "D.E changes God's Words, subtituting man's thoughts for God's words."

    Then why does it occur sometimes in the KJV?
    --------------------------------------------------

    It occurs in rare instances in the KJB, to which God has EVIDENCED is correct and appropriate and to which mirrors the texts (context) it was translated from. This logic of yours, to say it is okay to ALTER the words of God as the mv's have done, and to the extreme and inappropriate manner, to which have made the Holy Bible a commentary, rather than the words of God is unacceptable and dangerous. My proof that this is what God has intended for our English language, is the EVIDENCE of it for generations of believers even until this day. God is not doing a NEW THING. Go ahead and believe man's opinions of God's word, rather than the words of God HE has already provided you with, but know this, it will lead to your downfall. Know this also, you will NEVER convince me that these mv's are the words of God, and I will and do REJECT them as being Holy Bibles as they claim to be, for they are only the commentaries, and interpretations of men. If the blind follow the blind, they both will fall into the ditch. (Matt.15:13-14)

    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  9. michelle

    michelle New Member

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

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

    It is quite obvious that the KJB translators, translated what was the "best" and most "accurate" rendering from the origional. If their opinions indicated in the footnotes were the "best" and most "accurate" then those would have been translated into the scriptures, and not as mere footnotes. God has obviously EVIDENCED that what we are to have in our language, is what indeed we have, rather than the opinions of men.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  10. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle writes:
    This comes from someone who has previously claimed that she is not KJVO. :confused:
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Bur God did do something new in 1769? How do YOU determine when God does something new?
     
  12. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bur God did do something new in 1769? How do YOU determine when God does something new? </font>[/QUOTE]C4K, don't you get it by now? You and I "would understand if we just understood." :D
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    And if we would pray and fast and seek the Holy Spirit instead of our biased views.
     
  14. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    This comes from someone who has previously claimed that she is not KJVO.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I am in opposition to and reject those things that would or have CORRUPTED the words of God. As the evidence has been given of the mv's today and the serious alterations from the standard words of God in our language that has been exposed, I am anti-mv.

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

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Bur God did do something new in 1769? How do YOU determine when God does something new?
    --------------------------------------------------


    No He did not. He made was was available better, not different. What we see evidenced and exposed of the modern versions today are different, and most definately not better, but worse - altered and corrupted.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    So He did something new in 1611?

    Why not 2004?
     
  17. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle, do you not get it?????? "God promised to preserve his WORDS" is the mantra of KJV-onlyism. Arguing that the KJV is a preservation of God' WORDS, while at the same time arguing for dynamic equivalency in certain instances (where WORDS are not preserved, but THOUGHTS are) as you have done, is contradictory.

    Did God promise to preserve his WORDS? (Yes, I know this is a yes/no question, and I am already prepared for 7 pages of you dancing around giving a yes/no answer).
     
  18. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle writes:

    More semantics nonsense. Wasn't it a staunch KJVO who said "Things that are different are not the same"?

    You are anti-MV, but not KJVO. Got it.

    This seems an awful lot like the abortion proponants who are trying to re-label "pro-life" people as "anti-choice". Same difference; they just think their spin on the position casts pro-lifers in a negative light.

    "Anti-MV" or "KJVO": same difference.
     
  19. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "He made was was available better, not different."

    Better = different, by definition.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's all subjective semantics at this point.

    What's one man's "better" is another's "corruption".

    HankD
     
Loading...