Any Thoughts on the T.N.I.V.

Well, actually I know what dynamic equivalence, as applied to bible translation, means.

However, what I was pointing out is that your first statement said

But your second statement said

See the conflict?

Dynamic equivalence really has nothing at all to do with the evolution of the receptor language. When properly used it has to do with the differing logic between the exemplar language and the receptor language.

Formal equivalence is a translational philosophy that maintains the grammatical form of the word in the exemplar in the translation process.

Dynamic equivalence, when improperly used, is a translational philosophy that changes the grammatical form in the receptor language. (I believe this to be improper because it tends to negate, at least in part, the concept of verbal inspiration.)

In other words the translators feel free to change a noun to a pronoun, or conversely, a pronoun to a noun, and even the case and number of the original words, or even the tense of verbs, etc.

Robert Thomas, Professor of New Testament at Master's Seminary has written an excellent article wherein he opines that dynamic equivalence is more properly understood to be a hermeneutic than a translational philosophy. http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1g.pdf

 

That would only be true if the receptor language evolved from one form to another during the translation process.

Translations are done in the vernacular of the day. They are a snapshot in time of the receptor language. Unless the language itself changed from the time the translation started until it was complete there would be no need to account for the evolution of words in the receptor language as such evolution does not take place in so short a period of time.

 

But that has nothing to do with equivalency either formal or dynamic.

But that has nothing to do with dynamic equivalency. The Hebrew word in 1 Samuel 1:3 translated "hosts" in almost every English version including the NKJV, WEB, ESV, etc., which represent the latest English translations, is tsaba’ which can mean an army or a company, indicating a large group. But if we look at those latest English versions they all use the same English word, "hosts" to translate the English word.

However, if we look at the NIV we see something entirely different. The NIV uses the term "the LORD Almighty" to translate what all the other English versions translate "LORD of hosts." Now that is an example of dynamic equivalence. The word "tsaba'" never means "almighty." In fact the Hebrew word for "almighty" is "Shadday."

So, if one of the newer English versions chose to translate 1 Samuel 1:3 as "This man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to Jehovah of multitudes in Shiloh" or perhaps "This man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to The LORD of masses in Shiloh" would not be an example of dynamic equivalence for "tsaba'" does literally mean any of those words. But to change (the meaning of "dynamic") from a word meaning "many" (hosts, multitudes, masses") to a word meaning "absolute power" is definitely dynamic equivalence.

 

Yes, and the fact that some people don't know what "hosts" means does not mean using "armies" or "masses" or "multitudes," all of which would be legitimate formal equivalent translations of the Hebrew word, is dynamic equivalence. But changing it to try to make it say something it doesn't really say is an example of dynamic equivalence as I pointed out in the example from 1 Samuel 1:3.

Here are some other examples, from the NIV, of what dynamic equivalence really is.

Ephesians 4:1-3. The NIV translates the passage with three imperatives (commands): 1) "Be completely humble and gentle, 2) be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3) Make every effort..."

But the Greek text does not have three commands (imperatives), but instead it has one exhortation (indicative) in verse 1, walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, followed by four examples. 1, being humble and gentle, 2, being patient, 3, bearing with one another, 4, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit . . .

Another classic example of this type of verb tense change is Jude 20.

NIV Jude 20 Dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith. Let the Holy Spirit guide and help you when you pray.

The NIV changes the participle "building" to the imperative "build."

(I won't even go into the difference between "praying in the Holy Spirit" and "Let the Holy Spirit guide and help you when you pray.")

 

Uh, no. The point was there aren't any commands. The imperative is not used, only the indicative.

The NASB is a formal equivalent translation and gets Ephesians 4:1-4 correct.

Just a note on the NASB. It is formal to the point of woodenness on some occasions. It gets so involved in formal equivalence that it actually obscures the colloquial meaning of some passages. It is an excellent translation but the reader needs to do a lot of personal study (which is not a bad thing!) in order to understand some of the passages.