Featured I am a KJVOs

Yes, there is no strict literal version, and all version at times do use a more dynamic rendering, but the formal version do indeed use it much less of the time.

 

Like many non-translators here on the BB and elsewhere, you are mixing up "dynamic equivalence" with other thought-for-thought methods.

Eugene Nida changed the name of his method to "functional equivalence" because of how the term DE had been misused in exactly this way. (I can give quotes on this.)

 

The esv and Csb would use that to have a more literal translation than say the Nlt/Niv, correct?

 

Ripping do you know any Greek, Hebrew or secondary language other than English?

I wonder how you can speak with such authority, because it seems to me you speak with so much authority but it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.

What experience do you have speaking or translating into a second language?

 

I make no apologies for my statement, you are misinformed

Most of your modern translations such as the NASB, NIV and others are based on the United Bible Societies Greek text or the Nestle Aland text, I dont trust the editors of these texts such as Bruce Metzger, Kurt and Barbara Aland, or Eberhard Nestle to decide what the accurate and best readings are of the New Testament considering that they are heretics and apostates. For example Metzger questions that Peter even wrote the epistles that bear his Name

“KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33). “

Kurt Aland also doubted the canonicity of several New Testament Books.

Not the kind of guy I want editing the Greek text behind my bible translation.

See page 5 and following of this link http://www.bibelgriechisch.info/Aland.pdf
Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)

“Nestle, of the popular Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (nearly 30 different editions now), rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and believed it was no more than a normal piece of literature. He claimed that authors of the New Testament never expected their writings to be read by others let alone be taken as the authoritative word of God.”

Kurt and Barbara Aland

“Partner with Eberhard Nestle (above), he and his wife are also contributors the UBS. Aland does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible, and that the Old Testament and the gospels are full of myths that were not inspired by God but merely a naturalistic process. Kurt Aland does not believe that the canon of Scripture is complete or settled.”

The Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White


The people behind modern textual criticism are largely apostate heretics and the evangelicals involved are piggy backing off of unbelieving scholarship.

Textual Criticism Drawn From the Wells of Infidelity

 

Apostle Paul's King James Bible Up For Auction

 

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. The ESV touts the "essentially literal" method, delineated in Translating Truth, and the CSB used the "optimal equivalence" method of my old Hebrew teacher, James Price, delineated in his magnum opus, A Theory For Biblical Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model. Both of these books describe a similar method, easily defined and practical for the translator to use. (Ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism on this matter. I'm a translator, have both books, and have read them both.)

 

They are only marketing ploys --nothing more.

 

Short answer: yes.

 

Rippin you gonna respond or what?

 

JK, you are responding to my statement :
"Every Bible version uses dynamic equivalence --not exclusively --but DE is certainly present in all three."

Now tell me why you disagree with the above.

 

It’s kind of hard to have a discussion about dynamic equivalence with someone who has no experience with another language or with any kind of translation. I wonder f you even understand what dynamic equivalence is.

Perhaps you could define what dynamic equivalence is for me?

 

Examples come to mind from the KJV : God forbid and God save the king.

 

First time poster...

I'm a little saddened by seeing arguments about which translation is/are/is not/are not the word of God. Don't we know that the true Word of God is in Heaven, seated at the right hand of the almighty Father? What we have on parchments and bound into books is our copy of that word...and, as a poster up-thread commented, some people have insisted upon scribbling in it with crayons. Some of them have so distorted their results that "the message" is barely legible...but, no matter what we do with our copy, it does not and cannot change the original! "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)."

Just FYI, I use the KJV for memorization but I prefer the NKJV for daily study, especially of OT poetic literature.

 

There are places in the KJV where the KJV translators did not translate formally.

Do you apply the same exact measures to the translation decisions in the KJV?

 

The NKJV is translated from the same Hebrew Masoretic text as the KJV.

They made use of a different printed edition, but in the very few places [eight or nine] it differed from the edition used in the making of the KJV they followed the same readings followed in the KJV.

 

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

The NKJV uses an eclectic mix of the Masoretic & Stuttgart texts, and uses the mostly the TR for its NT.. However, GOD is NOT bound to the TR.

 

So, where does GOD say He's bound to the TR? The NKJV omits some of the KJV goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & is in OUR language.

Opinion and guesswork only. And anyone depending upon MR. KINNEY for Biblical knowledge has to have rocks in his/her head!