Featured Dynamic Equivalence--Again!

Your understanding is messed-up. Martin Luther, on the other hand, was right on the money. Again, I will remind you of Ernst R. Wendland's paper Martin Luther, the Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation.

Also, you have given the impression that modern FE Bible versions are done by a committee of one. No, they are composed of teams, so that no singular person injects his or her interpretation into the text.

The NLT is probably the most well-known FE Bible version in English these days. The translators of the NLT are not Nidaites. They don't hold to existentialism. and every other evil you wish to attach. You need to do yourself a favor and read the introduction of that translation. Also, note the Conservative scholars who contributed to it.

"The point here is that a nonliteral translation, precisely because it may give expression to the genius of the target language (in this case English), can do greater justice to that of the source language (Greek)." [p.43 of Are Translators Traitors by Moises Silva in the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation]

 

I certainly didnt get that impression from your posts.

 

This so called dynamic equivalence translation too often corrupts the a correct meaning of the word of God. IMO.

 

"The a."

Get specific. Identify a particular translation and explain why, in your understanding it corrupts the correct meaning of the Word of God.

Try to stick to versions of the last two decades please.

 

"the a" is a typo. NIV Isaiah 66:24, ". . . the worms that eat them will not die, . . ." Mark 9:48, ". . . the worms that eat them do not die, . . ."
Neither the Hebrew or Greek says that.
The word "worm" is singular, not in the plural. And says nothing about eating. And most Christians do not know why, even when having the correct translation.

 

The 2005 edition of the TNIV had "their worm" in both passages and no references to eating.

 

The 2011 edition was cited.

 

But your views differ from his regarding Dynamic or Functional Equivalency.


I have never said that all who stand for DE/FE are existentialists, either on this thread or in my paper or anywhere else. This is a false charge.

You have said that DE/FE is based philosophically on existentialism --a human philosophy. You also said that it is also based on neo-orthodoxy --that the Bible is not the Word of God, but becomes so when a person experiences it.

Therefore, if a Bible version which is considered primarily a FE such as the NLT all those principles you attach to FE must be instilled in it. That is, if you wish to be logically consistent. However, you are not being consistent. All those negative features you think are within FE translations -- you somehow back away from when it comes to a DE translation. You can't have it both ways.

 

I want to deal with JJ's #38 post regarding Matthew 8. He seeks to prove what he thinks are the inadequacies of the TNIV.

This will be done in piecemeal fashion.

JJ complains that the TNIV has no conjunctions at the start of all the verses in the chapter except for possibly six passages. But when comparing that chapter to the CSB the latter also does not have conjunctions in those places.

In verse 2 the CSB has "Right away." Some versions have "Suddenly" or "Then." A few have "and." Some have "And behold" such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, LEB and Web.

I did not get his point regarding verse 6.

In verse 11 the TNIV has "take their places at the feast." This irks JJ. He prefers "sit" or "recline." And he objects to the TNIV rendering of "take their places at the feast." The CSB and NET have "share the banquet." The NLT and WEB have "sit down." The LEB has "be seated at the banquet." I don't see what his issue is.

In verse 12 the TNIV has "the subjects of the kingdom." The EXB also has "subjects of the kingdom" as one of its options along with "heirs" and "sons." The KJV, WEB and CEB have "children of the kingdom."

Verse 16 in the NIV has "he drove out the spirits with a word." That's the same rendering as the CSB and the NET. Contrary to JJ's claims, it was immediate. You can easily see this "with a word." The Phillips and the LEB have "expelled with a word." That is instantaneous.

To be continued.

 

Verse 20 of Mathew eight. The TIV has "Jesus replied" as the CEB and NLT have it. Some other versions have "answered him" or "told him." I can see the point "He [Jesus] said" is more powerful. Jesus was not just responding to the teacher of the law, but telling him.

Verse 21 is problematic in the TNIV with the wording "Another disciple." The TNIV is the only version on BibleGateway that has that rendering. It indeed should be "Another of his disciples."

Verse 24 is rendered as "furious storm" in the TNIV. The CSB,ISV and Mounce have "violent storm." The NASB, WEB and NLT have "fierce storm. I see no problem with the TNIV rendering.

In verse 25 the TNIV has "We're going to drown!" just as the CEB and NLT have it. Most versions have "We're going to die" or "We are perishing."

In verse 26 the TNIV has "it was completely calm." The NCV renders it the same way. The NASB has "perfectly calm." Most versions have "great calm" and a number of others, such as the NRSV have "great calm."

In verse 29 the TNIV has "Before the appointed time." Mounce, NABRE, NCB and NLT render it in the same manner.

In verse 31 the TNIV has "If you drive us out" the CSB, EHV, ISV, Mounce, NABRE and NET render it the same way.

So where does that leave us? JJ did not have a convincing argument on the subject of conjunctions for this chapter.
I will give him a total of three points for verses 20,21 and 25. He gets credit for that. Therefore he gets a grand total of 3 out of 12 which is 25%. He did not establish his thesis.

 

The problem is not actually believing what the word of God literally says when it is to be so understood as such.

 

Well, if you consider a month ago a long, long time --the above is from the OP of this thread.

 

There is nothing nitpicky about it. In your opening post of October 25, 2022 you stated that it was time to rail against the DE theory of translation again.
Yet you told us on Saturday November 26, 2022 that you hadn't posted on DE for a long, long time. You went on to claim that no one knows where you currently stand on the issue.

 

You are a denier of plain facts. You contradict yourself.