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!

The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Martin Marprelate, Jun 27, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 8
  1. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In a previous thread, I crossed swords briefly with @Rippon on the question of 'Dynamic Equivalence' translations. He seems to believe that all translations are D.E. That may be so to some extent, but I hope to show the problems that arise when translations are not 'Formal equivalence.'

    I am giving examples from the NIV 1984, because that is the version that my church uses and I preach from it regularly, although I would sooner use another version. This is not particularly a dig at the NIV. It is by no means the worst translation on the market; it's just that I have seen its shortcomings.

    The first problem is the omission of certain words, usually conjunctions:

    Isaiah 12:3, NIV (1984). 'With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'
    Isaiah 12:3, NKJV. 'Therefore with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'

    The point is that we do not draw this water in isolation. It is only the one against whom the anger of God is turned away, who is trusting in Christ for salvation, whose strength and song He is, who can draw this water. There is a tiny connecting word which connects vs. 1-2 to v.3, and it is not for the translators to hide that word from the Christian reader. 'Therefore' is a big nine-letter word; 'so' would do just as well. [I note that the ESV also omits the word and therefore tends to make me think that it is not really a Formal Equivalence translation. I sense the hand of Don Carson]

    Isaiah 46:10 is another example of an omitted conjunction and the connection between v.10 and the preceding verses is broken in the NIV.

    Romans 1:16, NIV (1984). 'I am not ashamed of the Gospel.......'
    Romans 1:16, NKJV. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel.........'

    Why is Paul so eager to preach to the Romans? Because he's not ashamed of the Gospel, a litotes which means he's very proud of it, but also because of v.18:

    Romans 1:18. NIV (1984). 'The wrath of God is being revealed.......'
    Romans 1:18, NKJV. 'For the wrath of God is revealed......'

    Again, the NIV isolates v.18 from what goes before by omitting the word gar, which is in every Greek manuscript SFAIK both in v.16 and v.18. It ruins the continuity of his argument, and the translators have no reason to omit it. Why have they done so? Is it because they think the Holy Spirit is being a bit gobby and they need to cut down on His prolixity? [Thankfully the ESV follows the NKJV in these examples]
    I'm sorry to say that there are literally scores of places where the NIV (1984) omits these vital connecting words which the Holy Spirit has placed in the text for our help and instruction.

    In my next post I will move on to places where the NIV (1984) makes an unnecessarily and unhelpfully loose translation.
     
    #1 Martin Marprelate, Jun 27, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is a ridiculous claim that all translations are DE. Patently absurd.
     
    #2 Revmitchell, Jun 27, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I didn't say that. I said that all translations use DE. Not all the time, but they do indeed employ it. They have to. Passages would not make any sense otherwise.
     
    #3 Rippon, Jun 27, 2018
  4. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,493
    Likes Received:
    1,240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nine letters? – it’s only one in Hebrew. Vav
    This first example is a very poor example of DE.

    Vav (or waw) usual glosses as “and”, “or”, “but”…

    I’d use “and”,
    And you will draw water from the wells of salvation in joy. Isaiah 12:3 (LEB)​

    Many "literal" commentaries follow the example seen in the NIV.​

    I'm not sure why some others (including the NAS95) choose "Therefore".

    But perusing my commentaries I found a hint.

    Therefore ye shall——of salvation.—Ver. 3. These words appear to be a response to the expression of believing trust that we find in ver. 2.
    John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 168.​

    Is this an example of dynamic equivelance? I think not.

    Rob
     
    #4 Deacon, Jun 27, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
  5. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    MM has turned in Van!

    You'll be happy to know that in the 2011NIV For is used at the start of Romans 1:16.

    No For at the beginning of Romans 1:18. But shares company with CEB, NABRE and NLT in that regard.

    As far as Isaiah 12:3 goes, the NIV doesn't have a Therefore or an And. However it joins with the CSB, CEB, ESV, NRSV, NLT,ISV, NABRE and NET.

    Please, when you make reference to the NIV it should be to the current edition which has been in publication for almost eight years now.
     
    #5 Rippon, Jun 27, 2018
  6. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Romans 6:6 is a good example of poor translating in most versions. The word anthropas which means man is often translated as “self”.
     
    #6 Jordan Kurecki, Jun 27, 2018
  7. atpollard

    atpollard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,643
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NLT is a DE translation:
    • [Isa 12:3 NLT] 3 With joy you will drink deeply from the fountain of salvation!

    The NIV is supposed to be a 50/50 balance between Formal and Dynamic:
    • [Isa 12:3 NIV] 3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.

    The NASB is a FE translation:
    • [Isa 12:3 NASB] 3 Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.
     
    #7 atpollard, Jun 27, 2018
  8. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is perfectly valid to discuss the NIV84. It is still the most common pew Bible in the SBC churches in S.IL and WKY that I see. Of all the pastors I know that preach from the NIV only 1 uses the 2011. The rest still preach from the NIV84. The NIV84 is still very much a relevant translation, despite it being out of print.



    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    #8 McCree79, Jun 28, 2018
  9. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    I cannot think of any translation that translates a first class conditional sentence as that, but as a third class conditional sentence.
     
    #9 gb93433, Jun 28, 2018
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Even though the prior 1984 edition was a superior translation?
     
    #10 Yeshua1, Jun 28, 2018
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Many conservatives see it as being superior to the new edition....
     
    #11 Yeshua1, Jun 28, 2018
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I tend to see it on a scale of formal to more DE, such as Nas/Nkjv most formal, then Esv/Csb/Niv, then Nlt!
     
    #12 Yeshua1, Jun 28, 2018
  13. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They would be wrong. Outside of the αδελφοί issue, the 2011 is superior. The NIV84 left a lot to be desired in many places. MM showed some. Rippon pointed out at least 1 correction the 2011 made over the 84. Another is the use of "faith" in John. Despite the rendering of αδελφοί in the NIV2011, I will take it over the NIV84....and NIV84 is the Bible I grew up on. I still think fondly of it.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    #13 McCree79, Jun 28, 2018
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Even though it went way overboard in its gendering renderings?
     
    #14 Yeshua1, Jun 28, 2018
  15. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It does not. Stop with the misrepresentations. The inclusive language of the CSB and NET are very close to that of the NIV. And the NLT too with a bit more. I have proven you are wrong numerous times. But you never learn.
     
    #15 Rippon, Jun 28, 2018
  16. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is that all you've got? ;-)
     
    #16 Rippon, Jun 28, 2018
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ανθρωπος means a human of either gender.

    Thayer Definition:
    1) a human being, whether male or female
    1a) generically, to include all human individuals
    1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
    1b1) of animals and plants
    1b2) of from God and Christ
    1b3) of the angels
    1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
    1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
    1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
    1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
    1g) with reference to sex, a male
    2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
    3) in the plural, people
    4) joined with other words, merchantman
     
    #17 TCassidy, Jun 28, 2018
  18. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yep, definately not self. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn’t self be a completely different Greek word? I’m sure if God wanted to say self there was a much more precise way to say it in Greek?
     
    #18 Jordan Kurecki, Jun 28, 2018
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They all have quite a bit more than the Nas/Nkjv do, correct?
     
    #19 Yeshua1, Jun 28, 2018
  20. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As the KJV would say, God forbid!
    As I explained in the O.P., the reason that I am instancing the NIV 1984 is because I am familiar with it. I am using it as an example of Dynamic Equivalence, and judging by your post, it is a good example.. I do not possess a 2011 NIV and have no immediate plans to obtain one.
     
    #20 Martin Marprelate, Jun 28, 2018
Page 1 of 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...