The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

[Martin Marprelate]

In a previous thread, I crossed swords briefly with @Rippon on the question of 'Dynamic Equivalence' translations. He seems to believe that all translations are D.E. That may be so to some extent, but I hope to show the problems that arise when translations are not 'Formal equivalence.'

I am giving examples from the NIV 1984, because that is the version that my church uses and I preach from it regularly, although I would sooner use another version. This is not particularly a dig at the NIV. It is by no means the worst translation on the market; it's just that I have seen its shortcomings.

The first problem is the omission of certain words, usually conjunctions:

Isaiah 12:3, NIV (1984). 'With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'
Isaiah 12:3, NKJV. 'Therefore with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'

The point is that we do not draw this water in isolation. It is only the one against whom the anger of God is turned away, who is trusting in Christ for salvation, whose strength and song He is, who can draw this water. There is a tiny connecting word which connects vs. 1-2 to v.3, and it is not for the translators to hide that word from the Christian reader. 'Therefore' is a big nine-letter word; 'so' would do just as well. [I note that the ESV also omits the word and therefore tends to make me think that it is not really a Formal Equivalence translation. I sense the hand of Don Carson]

Isaiah 46:10 is another example of an omitted conjunction and the connection between v.10 and the preceding verses is broken in the NIV.

Romans 1:16, NIV (1984). 'I am not ashamed of the Gospel.......'
Romans 1:16, NKJV. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel.........'

Why is Paul so eager to preach to the Romans? Because he's not ashamed of the Gospel, a litotes which means he's very proud of it, but also because of v.18:

Romans 1:18. NIV (1984). 'The wrath of God is being revealed.......'
Romans 1:18, NKJV. 'For the wrath of God is revealed......'

Again, the NIV isolates v.18 from what goes before by omitting the word gar, which is in every Greek manuscript SFAIK both in v.16 and v.18. It ruins the continuity of his argument, and the translators have no reason to omit it. Why have they done so? Is it because they think the Holy Spirit is being a bit gobby and they need to cut down on His prolixity? [Thankfully the ESV follows the NKJV in these examples]
I'm sorry to say that there are literally scores of places where the NIV (1984) omits these vital connecting words which the Holy Spirit has placed in the text for our help and instruction.

In my next post I will move on to places where the NIV (1984) makes an unnecessarily and unhelpfully loose translation.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is a ridiculous claim that all translations are DE. Patently absurd.

 

[Rippon]

It is a ridiculous claim that all translations are DE. Patently absurd.

I didn't say that. I said that all translations use DE. Not all the time, but they do indeed employ it. They have to. Passages would not make any sense otherwise.

 

[Deacon]

Isaiah 12:3, NIV (1984). 'With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'
Isaiah 12:3, NKJV. 'Therefore with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'

The point is that we do not draw this water in isolation. It is only the one against whom the anger of God is turned away, who is trusting in Christ for salvation, whose strength and song He is, who can draw this water. There is a tiny connecting word which connects vs. 1-2 to v.3, and it is not for the translators to hide that word from the Christian reader. 'Therefore' is a big nine-letter word; 'so' would do just as well.

Nine letters? – it’s only one in Hebrew. Vav
This first example is a very poor example of DE.

Vav (or waw) usual glosses as “and”, “or”, “but”…

I’d use “and”,

And you will draw water from the wells of salvation in joy. Isaiah 12:3 (LEB)​

Many "literal" commentaries follow the example seen in the NIV.​

I'm not sure why some others (including the NAS95) choose "Therefore".

But perusing my commentaries I found a hint.

Therefore ye shall——of salvation.—Ver. 3. These words appear to be a response to the expression of believing trust that we find in ver. 2.
John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 168.​

Is this an example of dynamic equivelance? I think not.

Rob

 

[Rippon]

MM has turned in Van!

You'll be happy to know that in the 2011NIV For is used at the start of Romans 1:16.

No For at the beginning of Romans 1:18. But shares company with CEB, NABRE and NLT in that regard.

As far as Isaiah 12:3 goes, the NIV doesn't have a Therefore or an And. However it joins with the CSB, CEB, ESV, NRSV, NLT,ISV, NABRE and NET.

Please, when you make reference to the NIV it should be to the current edition which has been in publication for almost eight years now.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Romans 6:6 is a good example of poor translating in most versions. The word anthropas which means man is often translated as “self”.

 

[atpollard]

The NLT is a DE translation:

• [Isa 12:3 NLT] 3 With joy you will drink deeply from the fountain of salvation!

The NIV is supposed to be a 50/50 balance between Formal and Dynamic:

• [Isa 12:3 NIV] 3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.

The NASB is a FE translation:

• [Isa 12:3 NASB] 3 Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.

 

[McCree79]

Please, when you make reference to the NIV it should be to the current edition which has been in publication for almost eight years now.

It is perfectly valid to discuss the NIV84. It is still the most common pew Bible in the SBC churches in S.IL and WKY that I see. Of all the pastors I know that preach from the NIV only 1 uses the 2011. The rest still preach from the NIV84. The NIV84 is still very much a relevant translation, despite it being out of print.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[gb93433]

I cannot think of any translation that translates a first class conditional sentence as that, but as a third class conditional sentence.

 

[Yeshua1]

MM has turned in Van!

You'll be happy to know that in the 2011NIV For is used at the start of Romans 1:16.

No For at the beginning of Romans 1:18. But shares company with CEB, NABRE and NLT in that regard.

As far as Isaiah 12:3 goes, the NIV doesn't have a Therefore or an And. However it joins with the CSB, CEB, ESV, NRSV, NLT,ISV, NABRE and NET.

Please, when you make reference to the NIV it should be to the current edition which has been in publication for almost eight years now.

Even though the prior 1984 edition was a superior translation?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is perfectly valid to discuss the NIV84. It is still the most common pew Bible in the SBC churches in S.IL and WKY that I see. Of all the pastors I know that preach from the NIV only 1 uses the 2011. The rest still preach from the NIV84. The NIV84 is still very much a relevant translation, despite it being out of print.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Many conservatives see it as being superior to the new edition....

 

[Yeshua1]

The NLT is a DE translation:

• [Isa 12:3 NLT] 3 With joy you will drink deeply from the fountain of salvation!

The NIV is supposed to be a 50/50 balance between Formal and Dynamic:

• [Isa 12:3 NIV] 3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.

The NASB is a FE translation:

• [Isa 12:3 NASB] 3 Therefore you will joyously draw water From the springs of salvation.

I tend to see it on a scale of formal to more DE, such as Nas/Nkjv most formal, then Esv/Csb/Niv, then Nlt!

 

[McCree79]

Many conservatives see it as being superior to the new edition....

They would be wrong. Outside of the αδελφοί issue, the 2011 is superior. The NIV84 left a lot to be desired in many places. MM showed some. Rippon pointed out at least 1 correction the 2011 made over the 84. Another is the use of "faith" in John. Despite the rendering of αδελφοί in the NIV2011, I will take it over the NIV84....and NIV84 is the Bible I grew up on. I still think fondly of it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

They would be wrong. Outside of the αδελφοί issue, the 2011 is superior. The NIV84 left a lot to be desired in many places. MM showed some. Rippon pointed out at least 1 correction the 2011 made over the 84. Another is the use of "faith" in John. Despite the rendering of αδελφοί in the NIV2011, I will take it over the NIV84....and NIV84 is the Bible I grew up on. I still think fondly of it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Even though it went way overboard in its gendering renderings?

 

[Rippon]

Even though it went way overboard in its gendering renderings?

It does not. Stop with the misrepresentations. The inclusive language of the CSB and NET are very close to that of the NIV. And the NLT too with a bit more. I have proven you are wrong numerous times. But you never learn.

 

[Rippon]

Romans 6:6 is a good example of poor translating in most versions. The word anthropas which means man is often translated as “self”.

Is that all you've got? ;-)

 

[TCassidy]

Romans 6:6 is a good example of poor translating in most versions. The word anthropas which means man is often translated as “self”.

ανθρωπος means a human of either gender.

Thayer Definition:
1) a human being, whether male or female
1a) generically, to include all human individuals
1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
1b1) of animals and plants
1b2) of from God and Christ
1b3) of the angels
1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
1g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

ανθρωπος means a human of either gender.

Thayer Definition:
1) a human being, whether male or female
1a) generically, to include all human individuals
1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
1b1) of animals and plants
1b2) of from God and Christ
1b3) of the angels
1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
1g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman

Yep, definately not self. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn’t self be a completely different Greek word? I’m sure if God wanted to say self there was a much more precise way to say it in Greek?

 

[Yeshua1]

It does not. Stop with the misrepresentations. The inclusive language of the CSB and NET are very close to that of the NIV. And the NLT too with a bit more. I have proven you are wrong numerous times. But you never learn.

They all have quite a bit more than the Nas/Nkjv do, correct?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

MM has turned in Van!

As the KJV would say, God forbid!

You'll be happy to know that in the 2011NIV For is used at the start of Romans 1:16.

No For at the beginning of Romans 1:18. But shares company with CEB, NABRE and NLT in that regard.

As far as Isaiah 12:3 goes, the NIV doesn't have a Therefore or an And. However it joins with the CSB, CEB, ESV, NRSV, NLT,ISV, NABRE and NET.

Please, when you make reference to the NIV it should be to the current edition which has been in publication for almost eight years now.

As I explained in the O.P., the reason that I am instancing the NIV 1984 is because I am familiar with it. I am using it as an example of Dynamic Equivalence, and judging by your post, it is a good example.. I do not possess a 2011 NIV and have no immediate plans to obtain one.