How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence?

I'm repeating these things for the hard-of-hearing.

 

Either you still hold to this or you don't -- it's rather simple.

 

Yeah,well your finger is pointing back to you.I haven't said anything false and it is dishonest of you for saying such a thing.

Meanwhile,[personal attack deleted], will try to uncover that existential phantom in dynamic translations.

 

Quote: Do you think that the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration is in danger from translators of dynamic versions?
-------------------------------------

Since plenary, verbal inspiration only applies to the original manuscripts, I would say nothing in subsequent versions affects true scripture.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It is quite apparent from the tone of your posts that you are beyond being suckered or succored. By the way look up the meaning of brief and paraphrase and then put them together. Then you will expand your near infinite bank of knowledge.

 

I don't know you from Adam, but you show a lack of respect for a man who has a wealth of experience that you admittedly lack. I doubt the depth of your maturity in the grace and love of God to respond to JoJ in such a way. IMHO an apology is in order for your unwarranted attacks.

 

apologies for the delay in getting here...I'm traveling and don't have reliable internet.

Learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic...:laugh:

Honestly, that is probably the best way.

Funny though how the KJV is dynamic equivalence in many areas too! I'd suggest all English translations are pretty far on the dynamic equivalency.

Maybe we should ask them how well they are aquainted with the originals. :thumbs:

again, sorry if this ground has been covered...or bombed...

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology from Rippon.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I have been studying the Bible, theology, philosophy, hermeneutics, church history, etc all my life. I have sat under some of the best professors of this lifetime, both evangelical and liberal, and I must confess that I am still a student. I still get confused about some things, and the various methods of translating the scriptures is that one area I confess a degree of ignorance.

This lack has not prevented me from presenting God's word, as I understand it, and even teaching the philosophy of the Christian Religion. I bow to others more learned, and lend a learner's ear to what can be taught.

Thank you, and bless,

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm listening and learning, JoJ!

I'll keep reading the thread to see what you explain. :wavey:

 

You wasted two posts dealing with this "doubt".I have never doubted Nida's existentialism or links to that philosophy.And I "doubt"(pun intended) that anyone else here has.

So,you are trying your level best to denigrate me with falsehoods.Not good.

 

Some "rabbit trail"! Aside from some of my posts mentioning existentialism in this thread,some others have spoken of it:

#32 JoJ
#35 Jim
#36 Marcia
#37 JoJ
#39 JoJ
#40 Jim
#45 TCG
#47 JoJ
#48 TCG
#49 JoJ
#52 JoJ
#58 JoJ
#59 JoJ
#70 JoJ

Hmm,15 posts and you had 9 of them.

 

You may call it "micro-paraphrasing" but scholars more learned than youself call it just plain paraphrasing.You just can't bring yourself to the point of acknowledging that the KJV has paraphrasing as much as many other Bible versions.

"God forbid","God save the king","would to God"and "and it came to pass" are indeed paraphrases -- among others.

I suggest you get off your highhorse before you take a tumble.

 

JoJ has said some things in the past about dynamic equivalent versions which are untrue.

"The goal of de translation is not primarily to reproduce the meaning of the original."

That's just plainly false.Tell that to the translation teams of the functionally equivalent versions and see what kind of response you'd get!

"Keeping the message intact is not the goal of dynamic equivalence."

Please tell me any Bible translator who believes that!And don't try to tell me that keeping the message intact and the form mean the same thing.

"DE often adds words and concepts not in the original,ostensibly to clarify things." [I emboldened]

Ostensibly!DE versions sometimes add words not found in the original -- concepts --no.And so-called literal versions do the same thing on occasion also.However, you would not like to characterize the ESV (as an example)for not only adding words but concepts not in the original -- ostensibly to clarify things.

 

Here's a JoJ quote from elsewhere.I'd like to see him try to say that I've twisted his words.

"Fundamentalists have had a presupposition of verbal-plenary inspiration. This should carry into our choice of Bible translations,leading us to reject versions translated with the dynamic equivalence method such as TEV (Good News Bible),NIV,TNIV,etc."

So the first thing that catches the eye is that he thinks dynamic equivalent translators do not believe in verbal-plenary inspiration! That's just blatantly false.And it gives one a good idea of where he's going with threads such as this.

It's bad enough that the evil dynamic equivalent versions have translators who deny verbal-plenary
inspiration -- but they use existentialism in their application of DE.

Secondly,depite his credentials, he just doesn't have a clue when he puts the TEV in the same classification as the NIV/TNIV! Since the HCSB is much the same as the TNIV you might as well lump that in there as well.