Formal equivalence vs Dynamic equivalence

I don’t dislike at all what you would like to have. I simply point out that it is not possible in translation to have what you would like to have. Language is more complicated than that and I will demonstrate some more instances in a moment.

As for Gen 1:1, the first word is bereshith. It is the prefix preposition “be” meaning, in, by, or with (or a number of other variations) with the word reshith (from the word for first, head, or beginning). So my point stands that “in” as the first word is a translation. It is not the first word that God inspired Moses to write. This distinction cannot be underestimated. Translations are simply that – translations – and they all involve, to one extent or another, interpretation.

Word for translations are not possibly in most cases and they are usually not the best way to communicate the parent proposition. For instance, I was in Brazil learning some basic Portugues and trying to make conversation, I did a word for word translation to ask someone how old they were. I put together a sentence saying “How old are you?” in word for word fashion. The person looked at me like I was stupid. Fortunately, a veteran missionary standing nearby came to my aid. He asked the question in Portuguese and got the correct answer with a smile (at my expense). You know what he asked in a word for word translation?? He said, “How many years do you have?” You see the formal vs dynamic distinction is an illegitimate distinction in many cases. Word for word translations do not always communicate. In Gen 37:2, what did Moses say?? He said that Joseph was 17 years old, in the way that Hebrews would say it. Since we speak English, we need to say that Joseph was 17 years old in English, which is what every English translation does … dynamically.

This is the reason why DE must be used to translate. A word for word translation does not always communicate God’s word as it was written. Idioms are a common form of communication but they do not stand formal translation. In most cases, they must be dynamic. When translating Scripture with DE, you are seeing what God said.

This is a loaded question. You are perfectly capable of understanding English translations. But why did a translation choose what it did. That you will never know until you study the Hebrew or Greek. Until then you are depending on people more capable than you to read and understand what they said. For instance, when you read your KJV, you are depending on the capability of 16th century translators to tell you what God said. That is a fine thing to do … just realize that you are doing it.

They do not own them in the sense that they have altered them. The manuscripts predate the RCC as we know it and they have been preserved by them. They contain differences from other manuscripts, just as all manuscripts do. There are no two manuscripts that match. They all differ to some extent. Unless you personally look at everyone of them, you are depending on someone else’s capability to tell what the most accurate one is. In using the KJV, you depend on Erasmsu to a large degree. Yet Erasmus did not have many of the manuscripts that are now available. As such he was limited.

No different that the KJV which is also clouded by the translators, albeit different translators. I think this is often overlooked. Those who follow the KJV exclusively are depending on translators and textual critics, just as those who use MVs.

So what do you do when the KJV uses DE?? Do you reject it?? To the point, I fail to see this as a flaw unless it is used unjudiciously. That is a far different matter.

No hostility? I am sorry to communicate that. My attempt at brevity and the lack of tone and inflection in the written media sometimes unfortunately communicate more or less than is intended.

No fear of doing that.

It is not really about the colleges you go to. It is more about whether or not your presuppositions correspond to the facts of history. There is overwhelming evidence that the facts as presented by the KJVOnly segment of Christendom does not properly correspond to the facts of history. As for me, I don’t really care what version any one uses, so long as it is a faithful translation. I love having the word of God in the language that I speak. I think that is how God intended it to be. My only point in writing was to gently correct a few misconceptions about translations and translating.

 

When discussing Acts 19:24, KJV-onliest-to-the-extremeist author Gail Riplinger says "The use of the name 'Diana', a dynamic equivalency (translating a word as meant and not as written), shows the breadth of scholarship of the KJV translators." (Chapter 7, New Age Bible Versions, emphasis added).

Interesting how both "dynamic equivalence" and "scholarship" are commended in this sentence.

 

Forever,

I included the reference to the KJV's "God forbid" as a dynamice equivalence because I wished to highlight the fact that every translation has such instances. I am in agreement with Pastor Larry and Joseph that an absolute distinction cannot be made between FE and DE translations. It is my contention that we should think of a continuum along which we can place translations, with those that have a tendency to be more FE on one end and those that have a tendency to be more DE on the other. But as I see it all translations will be some mixture of the two. Does this make sense?

Pastork

 

Hi Pastork;
Quote;From you
_______________________________________________________
May I ask if you believe that Jesus established a teaching office in the Church?
_______________________________________________________
Yes I believe He did.and the reason was to shepard the flock.But the office in my opinion has been so abused that it is no longer possible for me to trust a Pastor.So I study everyday and work hard to make sure that I'm not being mislead, not only by Pastor's but also by my own self...
_________________________________________________________
Quote;From you
Also, would you contend that there is no one who might have a better understanding of the Scriptures than you?
_________________________________________________________
I'm sure there are a lot of people who know a lot more than me. I wasn't aware that I appear to be a know it all. If I did know it all I wouldn't visit sites like this one.How about you are you convinced that you have a better understanding than I? . It all boils down to trust. Should I trust someone who is no less a sinner than I?. I do not feel that there are many good pastor's left in the world. They go to semenary and study and they end up doing the same things that we all have to do which is rely on the word of other men.I wish this weren't so but it is .We all have to be responsible for our own salvation.We all need to study so we know the difference between truth and lie.Although the Holy Spirit guides us we can still be misled. After all a Pastor is hired help and a lot of times is not concerned about the souls that are placed in his care.
Romanbear
Peace

[ December 07, 2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: romanbear ]

 

Romanbear,

My questions were obviously intended to highlight how strong your statements were. I found it truly incredible that anyone would say "what makes anyone any more capable of reading and understanding than I am. If a man can read now a days why do we have to have someone explain it to us." Now I find that you are appropriately backing off somewaht from these statements. However, I am saddened that you have become so cynical as to assert that the pastoral "office in my opinion has been so abused that it is no longer possible for me to trust a Pastor." This makes it look as though you agree with me in principle that Jesus established a teaching office in the Church, but that you no longer in practice trust that He continues to raise up godly men to occupy that office.

I commend you for being a one who studies the Word and for your having come here with a desire to learn (even from the pastors who are here?). You have asked me if I am convinced that I have a better understanding than you. Well, given that I don't really know you, I would have to refrain from making any assumptions about your overall understanding of the faith in comparison to my own. As a matter of fact, I try not to think in these terms toward others. I do not see myself as in competition with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

You have said with regard to your distrust of pastors in general that "it all boils down to trust" and have asked, "Should I trust someone who is no less a sinner than I am?" It sounds to me as though you may have been burned a few times, but I would point out that the real issue does not boil down to whether or not you can trust another person. The real issue is whether or not you can trust God to work through another person and take the risk of being hurt again, trusting Him with your life more fully.

I know that I have taken us off the topic of this thread, but in my view these issues are of too great an importance not to be discussed. I pray that God will strengthen us both, myself as a pastor and you as one in need of a truly godly pastor.

Your Brother in Christ,
Keith

[ December 07, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Hi Pastork;
I'd really rather stay on the subject at hand.Thankyou for your concern but, I have Jesus Christ and He is sufficient for all my needs.
Romanbear
Peace

 

Why is it that when we want clarificaation of a passage, we look to the formal definition of a word?

 

Hi Chris;
Your right we do don't we.I think it's because we want what the word means and not what someone thinks it means
Romanbear
Peace

 

For a very good book on this subject for
English Bible translation get Leland Ryken's,
The Word of God in English.

Clay