The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

[Martin Marprelate]

I said that the term son of man is used more than in 80 times in the book of Ezekiel and is not referencing Christ. Do you dispute that?

The term 'son of man' is indeed found repeatedly in Ezekiel to describe one who is the obedient servant of the Lord. 'Son of man, do this,' son of man, say that,' son of man go there' and so forth. '.....Christ Jesus, ....made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant........and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death.....' Ezekiel was beyond a doubt a type of Christ, hence the use of the term. Of course the term 'son of man' is also found in Daniel 7:13-14 to describe Christ in His exalted state.

A distinction without a difference. It's your fantasy boogieman.

Do you think john MacArthur and D.A. Carson subscribe to your nonsense conspiracy? If so you are wacko.

To the best of my knowledge, MacArthur is not a Bible translator SFAIK, and in every book I have by him uses the NASB which is not gender-bending. I therefore have no beef with him other than that I think he is wrong on Psalm 8. But I don't think he would endorse the NIV 2011 translation. Carson is not a publisher SFAIK. I have heard him speak three or four times and will do so again at a conference in November. But I am not a fan.

The point is --you have no point. Your reasoning is like that of a KJVO.

The point is that you have no answer and so you play the man and not the ball-- as usual. I repeat, the point is that it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

The translators that you so often demean are honouring the Word of God and honest in their attempt at translation.

You are simply throwing mud.

Their honesty I do not criticize. I am sure they believe that they are doing the right thing. But they what Lenin described as 'useful idiots' giving aid to a feminist lobby that has as its ultimate aim the neutralization of the word of God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html
See the real need for the revision !

Excellent information. I had not seen it before.
Thanks for that, Y1.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:45 PM Pacific.

 

[Rippon]

Jesus tied Himself into the OT prophecies of the Son of Man, so why would we try to exclude Him from being there?

The two references in Mark have nothing whatsoever to do with prophecies. Read with attention.

 

[Rippon]

To the best of my knowledge, MacArthur is not a Bible translator,

The same applies to the folks you quote.

But Fee, Strauss and Carson have done their fair share of Bible translation.

and in every book I have by him uses the NASB which is not gender-bending.

Your infantile remark has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. But that's your style --spouting irrelevancies.

it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

You have not been on a translation team and you should not demean those who do that God-honoring task.

giving aid to a feminist lobby that has as its ultimate aim the neutralization of the word of God.

You're sipping the same stupid drink that Y1 imbibes. You really need to take a backseat and let adults drive.

 

[Rippon]

So we are coming to the close of a thread that M&M started and he has not once proven the thesis of his OP.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Don't look for Him when He is not there.

For some examples in the KJV and NKJV it says in the book of Mark that He came into Capernaum, but based on the best documentation they came into that city. (9:33)

See also 11:19 where your favorite version has He, but it should read they went out of the city.

1. All through this thread I have made no mention of textual variants. It is simply not the point. The thread is about the shortcomings of Dynamic Equivalence.
2. The Lord Jesus is there. Whether one accepts the Critical Text or the Majority Text, He is right in the centre of the accounts. Just read the text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The same applies to the folks you quote.

But Fee, Strauss and Carson have done their fair share of Bible translation.

Your infantile remark has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. But that's your style --spouting irrelevancies.

You have not been on a translation team and you should not demean those who do that God-honoring task.


You're sipping the same stupid drink that Y1 imbibes. You really need to take a backseat and let adults drive.

You, of course, have been on a translation team, and have studied textual criticism at University and have a working knowledge of Greek.

Not.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So we are coming to the close of a thread that M&M started and he has not once proven the thesis of his OP.

I am happy to let others be the judge of that. However, I repeat: it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The translators that you so often demean are honouring the Word of God and honest in their attempt at translation.

You are simply throwing mud.

Their honesty I do not criticize. I am sure they believe that they are doing the right thing. But they are what Lenin described as 'useful idiots' giving aid to a feminist lobby that has as its ultimate aim the neutralization of the word of God.

Just in case someone thinks I am overstating here, read this:
http://virtueonline.org/freeing-god-gender-and-tradition
Just because this refers to Anglicanism does not mean that it isn't trundling steadily down the road towards your church. Remember you read it here first.

 

[Rippon]

1. All through this thread I have made no mention of textual variants. It is simply not the point.

I was simply illustrating the fact that there are places that the KJV and NKJV put Christ in the text when he is not there.

The thread is about the shortcomings of Dynamic Equivalence.

Which you have not once in more than 150 posts of this thread addressed.

 

[Rippon]

You, of course, have been on a translation team, and have studied textual criticism at University and have a working knowledge of Greek.

When you can't respond. to reasonable content you are reduced to the above.

 

[Rippon]

I am happy to let others be the judge of that.

it's simply a matter of fact. You haven't produced anything to support your OP. My, my.

However, I repeat: it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

I'd love you to have a fact-to-face with translators of the NIV. Your nonsense would vanish in an instant,

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was simply illustrating the fact that there are places that the KJV and NKJV put Christ in the text when he is not there.

1. You have not proved that 'He' is not in the text.
2. He is there. Just read Mark 9:33. Whether it's 'He' or 'they,' Christ is in the very centre. 'And when He [or 'they'] came to Capernaum, HE asked them.......'
There is a vast difference between a genuine disagreement over the correct text, and deliberately excising Christ by using the plural when every single Greek manuscript without exception is singular. I repeat, it is the duty of the translator to translate what is there, not what he thinks ought to be there.

 

[Rippon]

Just in case someone thinks I am overstating here, read this:
http://virtueonline.org/freeing-god-gender-and-tradition
Just because this refers to Anglicanism does not mean that it isn't trundling steadily down the road towards your church. Remember you read it here first.

Speaking of seeing things that aren't there and then taking a hyper-leap and insisting they are --which is your usual tact --the above is trash. You know it, and yet you don't care. You just like to throw mud, make things up and generally do as much damage as you can by attributing false things to a Bible translation. Shame rests on your head.

 

[Rippon]

1. You have not proved that 'He' is not in the text.
2. He is there. Just read Mark 9:33. Whether it's 'He' or 'they,' Christ is in the very centre. 'And when He [or 'they'] came to Capernaum, HE asked them.......'
There is a vast difference between a genuine disagreement over the correct text, and deliberately excising Christ by using the plural when every single Greek manuscript without exception is singular.

Every Greek manuscript? Not. Among those that do not have the singular : B, D, W, 0274 and Sinaiticus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Every Greek manuscript? Not. Among those that do not have the singular : B, D, W, 0274 and Sinaiticus.

Please, Rippon, read what I have written, not what your fevered imagination thinks I've written.

 

[Rippon]

Please, Rippon, read what I have written, not what your fevered imagination thinks I've written.

Get real. You said that no Greek manuscript of Mark 9:33 has the plural form. I produced 5 documents that show the original was indeed plural. You lose.

 

[Rippon]

Don't look for Him when He is not there.

See also 11:19 where your favorite version has He, but it should read they went out of the city.

Among the documents that support the plural and not the singular here :

A, B, W, 28, 565, 700, 037 and 044.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11:45 PM Pacific.