The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

The term 'son of man' is indeed found repeatedly in Ezekiel to describe one who is the obedient servant of the Lord. 'Son of man, do this,' son of man, say that,' son of man go there' and so forth. '.....Christ Jesus, ....made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant........and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death.....' Ezekiel was beyond a doubt a type of Christ, hence the use of the term. Of course the term 'son of man' is also found in Daniel 7:13-14 to describe Christ in His exalted state.

To the best of my knowledge, MacArthur is not a Bible translator SFAIK, and in every book I have by him uses the NASB which is not gender-bending. I therefore have no beef with him other than that I think he is wrong on Psalm 8. But I don't think he would endorse the NIV 2011 translation. Carson is not a publisher SFAIK. I have heard him speak three or four times and will do so again at a conference in November. But I am not a fan.

The point is that you have no answer and so you play the man and not the ball-- as usual. I repeat, the point is that it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

Their honesty I do not criticize. I am sure they believe that they are doing the right thing. But they what Lenin described as 'useful idiots' giving aid to a feminist lobby that has as its ultimate aim the neutralization of the word of God.

 

Excellent information. I had not seen it before.
Thanks for that, Y1.

 

1. All through this thread I have made no mention of textual variants. It is simply not the point. The thread is about the shortcomings of Dynamic Equivalence.
2. The Lord Jesus is there. Whether one accepts the Critical Text or the Majority Text, He is right in the centre of the accounts. Just read the text.

 

You, of course, have been on a translation team, and have studied textual criticism at University and have a working knowledge of Greek.

Not.

 

I am happy to let others be the judge of that. However, I repeat: it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

 

Just in case someone thinks I am overstating here, read this:
http://virtueonline.org/freeing-god-gender-and-tradition
Just because this refers to Anglicanism does not mean that it isn't trundling steadily down the road towards your church. Remember you read it here first.

 

1. You have not proved that 'He' is not in the text.
2. He is there. Just read Mark 9:33. Whether it's 'He' or 'they,' Christ is in the very centre. 'And when He [or 'they'] came to Capernaum, HE asked them.......'
There is a vast difference between a genuine disagreement over the correct text, and deliberately excising Christ by using the plural when every single Greek manuscript without exception is singular. I repeat, it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

 

Please, Rippon, read what I have written, not what your fevered imagination thinks I've written.