The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

[rsr]

It is not necessary to quote Cloud's article in its entirety. You've already given the link.

 

[Rippon]

JK is spamming.

Warning, JK: D.C. is a false teacher. He is as messed up on the subject of Bible Translations as he is on Calvinism.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

It is not necessary to quote Cloud's article in its entirety. You've already given the link.

I didn’t I quoted the parts that I thought relevant. There is a still a whole lot more in the article

 

[Yeshua1]

So the original meant the rendering to be awkward sounding? I don't think so.

Thet weren't in their original languagesto their original hearers and readers, but at times for ther true intended statement to cross across into Englih, it can be ackward to read, but accurate to the text!

 

[Rob_BW]

My philosophy, why not get both?

Ink and paper are no longer precious commodities. That why I like my CSB, easy to read but with plenty of translation notes. Paired with my LEB, I feel that I have the best of both worlds.

 

[Yeshua1]

MM, as I said before, you need to secure a print edition of the 2011 NIV. It would make you a lot happier.

Regarding John 1:16 it reads :Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.

Concerning Romans 8:3 the verse ends with :And so he condemned sin in the flesh.

His Nkjv is fine, as it is overall a more accurate translation!

 

[McCree79]

My philosophy, why not get both?

Ink and paper are no longer precious commodities. That why I like my CSB, easy to read but with plenty of translation notes. Paired with my LEB, I feel that I have the best of both worlds.

I always use multiple English translations. Usually it is the ESV and CSB. Though I look at the NIV, NKJV, LEB, WEB, ASV and NASB semi frequently.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

My post was in agreement with yours and was actual sarcasm. I understood why you did it but the reality is it really shouldn't need to be explained.

Got it. I figured it out after writing my post. We are agreed.

 

[John of Japan]

The new method of Bible translation is called by many names: Dynamic Equivalency, meaning the translation is only “dynamically” (active, energetic) equivalent (less authoritative and precise than exactness) to the original and meaning that literal equivalency is not the objective; Common Language, meaning the translator aims to translate the text into the level of linguistic aptitude common to the receptor language and if the receptor language is that of a group of people who are largely illiterate, the “common level” might be third or fourth grade; Idiomatic Translation, meaning the translator is free to change idioms into those that would be easily understood by the people in the receptor language (if they don’t readily understand snow, for example, this can be changed to some other substance that is white in color); Impact Translation, meaning the translator attempts to produce the same impact on modern readers that, in his opinion, the original language version had on the original readers; Indirect Transfer Translation, meaning the translator does not have to translate literally and directly into the receptor language but is free to be indirect; Functional Equivalency, meaning the translator does not have to aim for exact equivalence but for general, functional equivalence; and Thought Translation, meaning the translator is free to translate general thoughts rather than actual words.

Dynamic EquivaDynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and ErrorDynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and Errorlency: Its Influence and ErrorDynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and Error

Forgive me, but some advice: David Cloud is not a translator and does not understand translation. Don't depend on him. While I agree with him against the DE method, he makes several mistakes here. Alas, I don't have time to deal with all of them, since we are about to go on vacation, but just one is that functional and dynamic equivalence are the same thing.

I have no idea where he got some of the rest, such as "impact translation." I have close to 100 books on both Bible and secular translation and linguistics, and have never heard of this term. And he doesn't source it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

MM, as I said before, you need to secure a print edition of the 2011 NIV. It would make you a lot happier.

I don't think it would.

Regarding John 1:16 it reads :Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.

Concerning Romans 8:3 the verse ends with :And so he condemned sin in the flesh.

For the third time, I am not picking on the NIV, I am trying to give examples of the shortcomings of a D.E. translation and the NIV 1984 is the one I'm familiar with.
I am glad that the 2011 NIV is moving closer to being a Formal Equivalence translation, but as you know there are other issues that will keep me from using it. However, I'm not going to discuss that here. I may start a new thread for it later.

 

[Deacon]

Thank you for this; I was unaware. Is it a very recent discovery?
The NKJV often gives DSS readings and occasionally follows them if they are supported by other ancient sources. Also, I checked it out in Alec Motyer's commentary, which is hot on the Hebrew and he doesn't mention it.

The Great Isaiah Scroll was one of the first found (cave 1) and the best preserved.
There are more than 20 copies of Isaiah in various conditions found among the DDSs.
All I can provide is a translation; copying Hebrew verses from BHS or 1QIsaA doesn't work well on the BBoard (it corrects the reversed text).

my victory near; my salvation will go forth.
His arm will judge the peoples,
the coastlands will wait for him,
and in his arm they will hope.

Isaiah 51:5 (The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible)
​

Check out the NET Bible for a good example of DE!
​

I am ready to vindicate,
I am ready to deliver,
I will establish justice among the nations.
The coastlands wait patiently for me;
they wait in anticipation for the revelation of my power.
Isaiah 51:5 (NET) ​

​

Rob

 

[Rippon]

His Nkjv is fine, as it is overall a more accurate translation!

If you would pay attention : I was saying that he might as well get the 2011 edition because he would have less to complain about in comparison to the 1984 model.

 

[Rippon]

Thet weren't in their original languagesto their original hearers and readers, but at times for ther true intended statement to cross across into Englih, it can be ackward to read, but accurate to the text!

Man, oh man! Are you a standup comedian somewhere?

 

[Rippon]

Check out the NET Bible for a good example of DE!
​

I am ready to vindicate,
I am ready to deliver,
I will establish justice among the nations.
The coastlands wait patiently for me;
they wait in anticipation for the revelation of my power.
Isaiah 51:5 (NET) ​

​

Rob

The NLT preserves features here that the NET doesn't.

My mercy and justice are coming soon.
My salvation is on the way.
My strong arm will bring justice to the nations.
All distant lands will look to me
and wait in hope for my powerful arm.

 

[Rippon]

Thet weren't in their original languagesto their original hearers and readers, but at times for ther true intended statement to cross across into Englih, it can be ackward to read, but accurate to the text!

Your prose is certainly awkward.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you would pay attention : I was saying that he might as well get the 2011 edition because he would have less to complain about in comparison to the 1984 model.

Would actually have more, based upon their gender issues!

 

[Yeshua1]

Your prose is certainly awkward.

But like the Nas/Nkjv, accurate!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now for two texts where words are added without informing the reader.

1 Corinthians 14:29, NKJV. 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.'
1 Corinthians 14:29, NIV (1984). 'Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.'

The point here is that the words 'What is said' appear in no Greek text whatsoever. They have been added by the NIV translators but no indication of this is given. Why does it matter? Well, what is it that is being judged? There are perhaps six prophets in the church in Corinth, but only two or three may speak. So the prophets get together before a church meeting and compare the messages that they have received from the Spirit. They then judge which ones are going to speak at that meeting and which messages can wait until the next one. They are not judging the truth of the message; that is the responsibility of each member of the congregation (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The NIV (1984) translation prevents the reader from interpreting the text properly IMO.

Then a famous old chestnut:

1 John 2:2, NKJV. 'And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world.'
1 John 2:2, NASB. 'And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world.'
1 John 2:2, NIV(1984). He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.'

The words, 'those of' (NASB) or 'the sins of' (NIV) are not found in any ancient MSS. They are an interpretative gloss. The NASB (like the KJV) put the words in italics so that the reader can see that they are not part of the text. But the NIV reader has no idea of this. The point is that it is quite possible that John is saying that the Lord Jesus is the propitiation for the whole Kosmos. The ground is cursed because of sin way back in Genesis 3:17, but in Romans 8:20-23, we see that the whole creation will be redeemed at the same time that we receive our resurrection bodies, and in Revelation 22:3 we learn that there is 'no more curse.' Why not? Because the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross has redeemed the whole creation.

I don't insist upon that interpretation, but I think it is a valid one, and the NIV prevents the reader from making it, or even from considering and rejecting it.

I might add that the NIV (1984) also fails to translate the word autos, 'He Himself,' and also gives an unsatisfactory rendering of hilasmos, which is properly translated 'propitiation.'

 

[Yeshua1]

Now for two texts where words are added without informing the reader.

1 Corinthians 14:29, NKJV. 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.'
1 Corinthians 14:29, NIV (1984). 'Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.'

The point here is that the words 'What is said' appear in no Greek text whatsoever. They have been added by the NIV translators but no indication of this is given. Why does it matter? Well, what is it that is being judged? There are perhaps six prophets in the church in Corinth, but only two or three may speak. So the prophets get together before a church meeting and compare the messages that they have received from the Spirit. They then judge which ones are going to speak at that meeting and which messages can wait until the next one. They are not judging the truth of the message; that is the responsibility of each member of the congregation (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The NIV (1984) translation prevents the reader from interpreting the text properly IMO.

Then a famous old chestnut:

1 John 2:2, NKJV. 'And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world.'
1 John 2:2, NASB. 'And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world.'
1 John 2:2, NIV(1984). He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.'

The words, 'those of' (NASB) or 'the sins of' (NIV) are not found in any ancient MSS. They are an interpretative gloss. The NASB (like the KJV) put the words in italics so that the reader can see that they are not part of the text. But the NIV reader has no idea of this. The point is that it is quite possible that John is saying that the Lord Jesus is the propitiation for the whole Kosmos. The ground is cursed because of sin way back in Genesis 3:17, but in Romans 8:20-23, we see that the whole creation will be redeemed at the same time that we receive our resurrection bodies, and in Revelation 22:3 we learn that there is 'no more curse.' Why not? Because the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross has redeemed the whole creation.

I don't insist upon that interpretation, but I think it is a valid one, and the NIV prevents the reader from making it, or even from considering and rejecting it.

I might add that the NIV (1984) also fails to translate the word autos, 'He Himself,' and also gives an unsatisfactory rendering of hilasmos, which is properly translated 'propitiation.'

The one area where the Niv update seems to have been much better was in Sarx, as 1984 translated it as flesh all of the day!

 

[Rippon]

But like the Nas/Nkjv, accurate!

Well what do you know? MM likes your awkward, but accurate language skills.