Living Bible/Message are paraphrases, but NLT/Niv are not...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
Formnal versions are more accurate overall!
And I have absolutely no understanding why that needs to be explained? But here we are and apparently it does.
I explained it because it is rarely understood here on the BB. I'm an educator, trying to help folk here understand Bible translation.
According to what Eugene Nida himself described DE to be, what renderings her on this thread are truly DE? I've not seen any yet, but I have seen thought-for-thought/free renderings.
So the original meant the rendering to be awkward sounding? I don't think so.
John 1:16, NKJV. 'And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.'
John 1:16, NIV(1984). 'From the fullness of His grace we have all received one blessing after another.'
Two problems here: firstly, Christ's fullness is limited in the NIV to His grace. The Greek word pleroma when applied to Christ refers to all His excellences and graces (c.f. Colossians 1:19). At the very least, in the light of verse 14, it must apply to His truth as well as His grace.
Secondly, the Greek word eulogia, 'blessing,' is not found in this verse, but has been imposed upon the reader by the translators. The Greek phrase charin anti charitos, might be better translated 'grace upon grace' rather than 'grace for grace' but it is not adequately translated by 'one blessing after another.' Than is more paraphrase than D.E.
Romans 8:3, NKJV. 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin; He condemned sin in the flesh.'
Romans 8:3, NIV (1984). 'For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man.'
The main problem is in the last sentence: 'He condemned sin in the flesh.' Most serious commentators SFAIK regard this as referring to Jesus' flesh; that God condemned sin by punishing it, not in us, but in Christ. The NIV prevents the reader from coming to that conclusion.
Next, as I have time, I want to look at words gratuitously added to the text without notification.
John 1:16, NIV(1984). 'From the fullness of His grace we have all received one blessing after another.'
Two problems here: firstly, Christ's fullness is limited in the NIV to His grace. The Greek word pleroma when applied to Christ refers to all His excellences and graces (c.f. Colossians 1:19). At the very least, in the light of verse 14, it must apply to His truth as well as His grace.
Secondly, the Greek word eulogia, 'blessing,' is not found in this verse, but has been imposed upon the reader by the translators. The Greek phrase charin anti charitos, might be better translated 'grace upon grace' rather than 'grace for grace' but it is not adequately translated by 'one blessing after another.' Than is more paraphrase than D.E.
Romans 8:3, NKJV. 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin; He condemned sin in the flesh.'
Romans 8:3, NIV (1984). 'For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man.'
The main problem is in the last sentence: 'He condemned sin in the flesh.' Most serious commentators SFAIK regard this as referring to Jesus' flesh; that God condemned sin by punishing it, not in us, but in Christ. The NIV prevents the reader from coming to that conclusion.
Next, as I have time, I want to look at words gratuitously added to the text without notification.
I explained it because it is rarely understood here on the BB. I'm an educator, trying to help folk here understand Bible translation.
According to what Eugene Nida himself described DE to be, what renderings her on this thread are truly DE? I've not seen any yet, but I have seen thought-for-thought/free renderings.
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.
I'm sorry. You need to understand that my sense of humour was surgically removed shortly after birth.I hoped it was obvious that it was a joke. The "KJVO" philosophy eliminates the need for a discussion ... the matter is settled aprori.
'Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the grape juice, those who go in search of mixed grape juice.I read on THIS SITE that for Christians, it only means "grape juice" (like Jesus made at the wedding).
Look not upon the grape juice when it is red.......etc. (Proverbs 23:29-31).
I don't think so.
Not a big thing but once again this is not really an example of dynamic equivalence.
The NIV simply choose to follow an older text 1QIsa a (Dead Sea Scrolls);
There the word 'arms' was singular - it should have been footnoted IMO.
Rob
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.
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.
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.
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
Dynamic EquivaDynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and ErrorDynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and Errorlency: Its Influence and ErrorDynamic Equivalency: Its Influence and Error
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY AIMS TO TRANSLATE THOUGHTS RATHER THAN WORDS
A cornerstone of dynamic equivalency is its goal of translating ideas rather than words. Eugene Nida said that “words are merely vehicles for ideas” (Nida, Bible Translation, 1947, p. 12).
Kenneth Taylor said the same thing when he described his translation method:
“We take THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT and convert it into the language of today. ... We can be much more accurate than the verbal translation” (Interview with J.L. Fear, Evangelism Today, December 1972).
Consider this description of the Contemporary English Version:
“The Contemporary English Version differs from other translations in that it is not a word-for-word and sequence-by-sequence rendering which reproduces the syntax of the original texts,” explained Dr. Burke. “Instead, it is an IDEA-BY-IDEA TRANSLATION, arranging the Bible’s text in ways understandable to today’s reader of English” (American Bible Society Record, June-July 1991, pp. 3-6).
Those who use dynamic equivalency claim to be aiming for a transfer of the same MEANING from the original to the receptor language. They say the original words and form are important, but only as a vehicle for the meaning; therefore, it is the meaning alone which is truly important in the translation.
It is true that the meaning of the original Scripture is important, but it is not true that one can translate only the “meaning” without concern for the words and form of the original.
Further, when we examine the dynamic equivalency or common language versions, invariably it is seen that the meaning has been changed as well as the form and words. It is impossible to translate exact meaning without striving to translate exact words and form.
A study of such popular English dynamic equivalency versions as the Good News Bible and the Living Bible proves this. Not only have the translators of these versions loosed themselves from the words and form of the original texts, but they have loosed themselves from the very meaning as well. Please keep this in mind when you read statements by these translators. They usually profess to remain faithful to the exact meaning of the original text in translation work, but it is impossible to be true to the Word of God while being faithful to dynamic equivalency.
A cornerstone of dynamic equivalency is its goal of translating ideas rather than words. Eugene Nida said that “words are merely vehicles for ideas” (Nida, Bible Translation, 1947, p. 12).
Kenneth Taylor said the same thing when he described his translation method:
“We take THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT and convert it into the language of today. ... We can be much more accurate than the verbal translation” (Interview with J.L. Fear, Evangelism Today, December 1972).
Consider this description of the Contemporary English Version:
“The Contemporary English Version differs from other translations in that it is not a word-for-word and sequence-by-sequence rendering which reproduces the syntax of the original texts,” explained Dr. Burke. “Instead, it is an IDEA-BY-IDEA TRANSLATION, arranging the Bible’s text in ways understandable to today’s reader of English” (American Bible Society Record, June-July 1991, pp. 3-6).
Those who use dynamic equivalency claim to be aiming for a transfer of the same MEANING from the original to the receptor language. They say the original words and form are important, but only as a vehicle for the meaning; therefore, it is the meaning alone which is truly important in the translation.
It is true that the meaning of the original Scripture is important, but it is not true that one can translate only the “meaning” without concern for the words and form of the original.
Further, when we examine the dynamic equivalency or common language versions, invariably it is seen that the meaning has been changed as well as the form and words. It is impossible to translate exact meaning without striving to translate exact words and form.
A study of such popular English dynamic equivalency versions as the Good News Bible and the Living Bible proves this. Not only have the translators of these versions loosed themselves from the words and form of the original texts, but they have loosed themselves from the very meaning as well. Please keep this in mind when you read statements by these translators. They usually profess to remain faithful to the exact meaning of the original text in translation work, but it is impossible to be true to the Word of God while being faithful to dynamic equivalency.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY AIMS AT THE USE OF SIMPLE LANGUAGE AND STYLE THROUGHOUT
In 1970 the Bible Society of India (a member of the United Bible Societies) began to produce a dynamic equivalency version (otherwise known as a “common language version”) of the Punjabi Bible. This project was completed in 1984. A listing of the translation principles was given in the report issued upon the release of the New Punjabi Bible, March 2, 1985. One of those principles was this: “From the language point of view, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE A VERY HIGH LITERARY STANDARD. The language used should be within the reach of both the highly educated as well as the less educated people” (The North India Churchman, The Church of North India, June 1985, p. 10).
By the Word is a report by missionary Lynn A. Silvernale on the Bengali Common Language Bible. This was a project of the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, and Silvernale was in charge of the work beginning in 1966. In her report, Silvernale gives one of the principles followed in this translation:
“Since the literacy rate in Bangladesh was only twenty-one percent when we began the translation, and since that figure included many people who are barely literate and many new readers, WE FELT THAT OUR LANGUAGE LEVEL WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT WHICH IS READILY UNDERSTOOD BY ADULTS WHO HAVE STUDIED IN GRADE FOUR OR FIVE. This level would be understandable to illiterate people hearing it read as well as to people who are able to read but have limited education” (Lynn A. Silvernale, By the Word, pp. 25,26).
A practical look at just how simple dynamic equivalency versions are in their literary style can be seen in this illustration regarding the Dutch Living Bible:
“We met our Dutch coordinator, Berno Ramaker and his wife Ruth. They are currently testing portions of our soon-to-be released Dutch Living Bible. School groups are being quizzed on four different Bible translations, including the Living Bible, to make sure our edition communicates effectively. ... The book of Genesis was produced in an attractive format last year as a promotion tool for the complete Bible. Acceptance has been enthusiastic. Even before Genesis was released, the 13-year-old son of a reviewer on the project found the manuscript on his father’s desk. After reading for awhile, he went to his father and said, “Hey, Dad, I read this manuscript and for the first time I can understand a book of the Bible from the first verse to the last!” (Thought for Thought, Living Bibles International, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1985, p. 3).
Note that the translators of this dynamic equivalency version in Dutch tested its value by the attitude of young readers. It was aimed at the level of an eight- to twelve-year-old child and was tested by school groups. Nothing is said about whether these young people were saved or had any spiritual discernment whatsoever. How unreasonable to test the trustworthiness of a Bible version by the reaction of spiritually undiscerning youth!
It might seem wonderful that a 13-year-old boy could read Genesis through and understand it, but consider what this means. The Bible is filled with things that are difficult to understand even for the most mature pastor. How then is it possible for a 13-year-old to understand it perfectly? It was possible only because the Dutch Living Bible has been simplified far beyond the form and meaning of the original text.
Yes, the dynamic equivalency versions are easy to read and understand, as easy as the morning newspaper. But how many times does an individual read his morning newspaper? How closely does an individual ponder every word of the morning newspaper? The fact is that the Bible is NOT the a newspaper! Simplicity is wonderful, but this is not the primary goal of Bible translation. The first and foremost goal is faithfulness to God’s holy, eternal Words. ABWE missionary Lynn Silvernale’s goal of producing a Bible on the language level of the barely literate people of Bangladesh sounds like a wonderful goal. Since we, too, are missionaries in an Asian country, among a people even less literate than those of Bangladesh, we readily sympathize with Silvernale’s desire to produce a Bible which the average reader can understand. The problem is this: The Bible is God’s Word, written in words chosen by God, in a literary form chosen by God. And by and large the original words and form of the Bible simply are not on a grade four reading level! For a translator to produce such a Bible necessitates drastically changing God’s Word from its original.
In 1970 the Bible Society of India (a member of the United Bible Societies) began to produce a dynamic equivalency version (otherwise known as a “common language version”) of the Punjabi Bible. This project was completed in 1984. A listing of the translation principles was given in the report issued upon the release of the New Punjabi Bible, March 2, 1985. One of those principles was this: “From the language point of view, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE A VERY HIGH LITERARY STANDARD. The language used should be within the reach of both the highly educated as well as the less educated people” (The North India Churchman, The Church of North India, June 1985, p. 10).
By the Word is a report by missionary Lynn A. Silvernale on the Bengali Common Language Bible. This was a project of the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, and Silvernale was in charge of the work beginning in 1966. In her report, Silvernale gives one of the principles followed in this translation:
“Since the literacy rate in Bangladesh was only twenty-one percent when we began the translation, and since that figure included many people who are barely literate and many new readers, WE FELT THAT OUR LANGUAGE LEVEL WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT WHICH IS READILY UNDERSTOOD BY ADULTS WHO HAVE STUDIED IN GRADE FOUR OR FIVE. This level would be understandable to illiterate people hearing it read as well as to people who are able to read but have limited education” (Lynn A. Silvernale, By the Word, pp. 25,26).
A practical look at just how simple dynamic equivalency versions are in their literary style can be seen in this illustration regarding the Dutch Living Bible:
“We met our Dutch coordinator, Berno Ramaker and his wife Ruth. They are currently testing portions of our soon-to-be released Dutch Living Bible. School groups are being quizzed on four different Bible translations, including the Living Bible, to make sure our edition communicates effectively. ... The book of Genesis was produced in an attractive format last year as a promotion tool for the complete Bible. Acceptance has been enthusiastic. Even before Genesis was released, the 13-year-old son of a reviewer on the project found the manuscript on his father’s desk. After reading for awhile, he went to his father and said, “Hey, Dad, I read this manuscript and for the first time I can understand a book of the Bible from the first verse to the last!” (Thought for Thought, Living Bibles International, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1985, p. 3).
Note that the translators of this dynamic equivalency version in Dutch tested its value by the attitude of young readers. It was aimed at the level of an eight- to twelve-year-old child and was tested by school groups. Nothing is said about whether these young people were saved or had any spiritual discernment whatsoever. How unreasonable to test the trustworthiness of a Bible version by the reaction of spiritually undiscerning youth!
It might seem wonderful that a 13-year-old boy could read Genesis through and understand it, but consider what this means. The Bible is filled with things that are difficult to understand even for the most mature pastor. How then is it possible for a 13-year-old to understand it perfectly? It was possible only because the Dutch Living Bible has been simplified far beyond the form and meaning of the original text.
Yes, the dynamic equivalency versions are easy to read and understand, as easy as the morning newspaper. But how many times does an individual read his morning newspaper? How closely does an individual ponder every word of the morning newspaper? The fact is that the Bible is NOT the a newspaper! Simplicity is wonderful, but this is not the primary goal of Bible translation. The first and foremost goal is faithfulness to God’s holy, eternal Words. ABWE missionary Lynn Silvernale’s goal of producing a Bible on the language level of the barely literate people of Bangladesh sounds like a wonderful goal. Since we, too, are missionaries in an Asian country, among a people even less literate than those of Bangladesh, we readily sympathize with Silvernale’s desire to produce a Bible which the average reader can understand. The problem is this: The Bible is God’s Word, written in words chosen by God, in a literary form chosen by God. And by and large the original words and form of the Bible simply are not on a grade four reading level! For a translator to produce such a Bible necessitates drastically changing God’s Word from its original.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY AIMS TO MAKE THE BIBLE ENTIRELY UNDERSTANDABLE TO NON-CHRISTIANS
Again we quote from the principles which were used by the Bible Society of India in the New Punjabi Bible: “It should be such that readers other than Christians also could understand without any difficulty” (The North India Churchman, June 1985, p. 10).
Our answer to this is simple. God has not given us authority to change His Word, regardless of the motivation.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18,19).
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5,6).
Dynamic equivalency confuses the job of the translator with that of a teacher. The translator’s job is to produce the most accurate translation possible into the receptor language. It is then the teacher’s job to explain the Scriptures.
It is the evangelist’s job to explain the Bible through preaching, personal witnessing, Gospel literature, etc.—not to dilute the Scripture so it reads like the morning newspaper, a popular novel, or a children’s story book.
Again we quote from the principles which were used by the Bible Society of India in the New Punjabi Bible: “It should be such that readers other than Christians also could understand without any difficulty” (The North India Churchman, June 1985, p. 10).
Our answer to this is simple. God has not given us authority to change His Word, regardless of the motivation.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18,19).
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5,6).
Dynamic equivalency confuses the job of the translator with that of a teacher. The translator’s job is to produce the most accurate translation possible into the receptor language. It is then the teacher’s job to explain the Scriptures.
It is the evangelist’s job to explain the Bible through preaching, personal witnessing, Gospel literature, etc.—not to dilute the Scripture so it reads like the morning newspaper, a popular novel, or a children’s story book.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY ADAPTS THE TRANSLATION TO THE CULTURE OF THE RECEPTOR PEOPLE
In describing the dynamic equivalency theories of Eugene Nida, Jakob Van Bruggen notes the emphasis on adapting the message of the Scriptures to the culture of the people:
“According to the advocates of dynamic equivalence, real communication is broken when the difference between biblical and modern culture is not considered. Nida writes, ‘Similarly, in the biblical account, the holy kiss, the wearing of veils, women speaking in the church, and wrestling with an angel all have different meanings than in our own culture’ (E. Nida, Message and Missions, p. 41). According to Nida, Jacob’s struggle with the angel is being interpreted psychoanalytically or mythologically (E. Nida, Message and Mission, pp. 41-42). He considers the cultural pattern so dominant that the translation should never be a mere transmitter of the words of the message. There is no formal equivalence between the original message and the translated message. What is needed is not a static equivalency but a dynamic equivalency” (Jakob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, Thomas Nelson, 1978, p. 70).
This thinking has led to all sorts of changes in the Word of God. Those who promote dynamic equivalency almost always emphasize that they aim to be perfectly faithful to the meaning of the original text. But this simply cannot be done when dynamic equivalency methodology is used. THOUGH DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY PROPONENTS CLAIM TO HONOR THE MEANING OF THE BIBLE TEXT, IN PRACTICE THEY DO NOT! IN PRACTICE THEY CHANGE, TWIST, AND PERVERT SCRIPTURE. I know this is hard language, folks, but it is true and it needs to be said. The Bible is serious business.
A man working on the translation of a dynamic equivalency version of the Bible into a tribal language spoken in northeast India has reasoned as follows: This tribe has never sacrificed lambs, but they have sacrificed roosters (cocks) to their gods in days past. Therefore, we must translate John’s testimony as follows: “Behold the Cock of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Evangelist Maken Sanglir of Nagaland gave us this illustration of Bible translation work in northeast India.
Another example of adapting the Bible’s language to today’s cultural situations was related to me by the head of the Bible Society in Nepal. He told of one of the projects of the United Bible Societies which was done in a part of the world in which the people had not seen snow. The translators, therefore, decided to translate Isaiah 1:18—“...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as the inside of a coconut...” Is the inside of a coconut the same as snow? Both are white, but there the similarity stops. Snow is like God’s forgiveness not only in that it is white but also in the way it covers and in its loveliness and probably in many other aspects. Even slight changes in God’s Word can have significant consequences in loss of meaning or even in imparting the wrong meaning.
In a United Bible Societies translation in the Ulithian language of the South Pacific, “dove” was changed to a local bird called a gigi (“Mog Mog and the Fig Tree,” Record, Nov. 1987, pp. 6-7).
Further examples of this are given in Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow, of Wycliffe Bible Translators:
Matt. 8:20—“foxes” was translated “coyotes” in the Mazahua language of Mexico.
Mark 4:21—“on a candlestick” was translated “on a grain bin” in the Korku language of India.
Lk. 9:62—“plough” was translated “hoe” in the Carib language of Central America.
Lk. 12:24—“storehouse” was translated “basket” in the Villa Alta Zapotec language of Mexico.
Matt. 20:22—“the cup” was translated “pain” in the Copainala Zoque of Mexico.
Matt. 10:34—“a sword” was translated “there will be dissension among the people” in the Mazahua language of Mexico.
The Zapotec translation of Mexico changed “the babe leaped in her womb” of Luke 1:41 to “the baby played.”
Consider some other examples of the way these versions change the Word of God to conform with culture. The following illustrations were given to us by Ross Hodsdon of Bibles International, formerly with Wycliffe:
In a translation for Eskimos in Alaska, “lamb” was replaced with “seal pup.”
In a translation in the Makusi language of Brazil, “son of man” was replaced with “older brother.”
In another Wycliffe translation “fig tree” was replaced with “banana tree.”
We believe this type of thing is wrong. When one departs from the principle of a literal translation, the mind of the translator and the culture and understanding of the people become the authority rather than the actual words of Scriptures.
It is important to emphasize that we are not talking about a wooden literalness, but about an unwavering commitment to the actual wording of the Bible text.
From these few examples, you see how far-removed the “dynamic equivalency” rendering can be from the original text. Dynamic equivalency allows translators this strange liberty to change, delete from, and add to the Word of God to such an extent that it no longer even can be called the Word of God.
In describing the dynamic equivalency theories of Eugene Nida, Jakob Van Bruggen notes the emphasis on adapting the message of the Scriptures to the culture of the people:
“According to the advocates of dynamic equivalence, real communication is broken when the difference between biblical and modern culture is not considered. Nida writes, ‘Similarly, in the biblical account, the holy kiss, the wearing of veils, women speaking in the church, and wrestling with an angel all have different meanings than in our own culture’ (E. Nida, Message and Missions, p. 41). According to Nida, Jacob’s struggle with the angel is being interpreted psychoanalytically or mythologically (E. Nida, Message and Mission, pp. 41-42). He considers the cultural pattern so dominant that the translation should never be a mere transmitter of the words of the message. There is no formal equivalence between the original message and the translated message. What is needed is not a static equivalency but a dynamic equivalency” (Jakob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, Thomas Nelson, 1978, p. 70).
This thinking has led to all sorts of changes in the Word of God. Those who promote dynamic equivalency almost always emphasize that they aim to be perfectly faithful to the meaning of the original text. But this simply cannot be done when dynamic equivalency methodology is used. THOUGH DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY PROPONENTS CLAIM TO HONOR THE MEANING OF THE BIBLE TEXT, IN PRACTICE THEY DO NOT! IN PRACTICE THEY CHANGE, TWIST, AND PERVERT SCRIPTURE. I know this is hard language, folks, but it is true and it needs to be said. The Bible is serious business.
A man working on the translation of a dynamic equivalency version of the Bible into a tribal language spoken in northeast India has reasoned as follows: This tribe has never sacrificed lambs, but they have sacrificed roosters (cocks) to their gods in days past. Therefore, we must translate John’s testimony as follows: “Behold the Cock of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Evangelist Maken Sanglir of Nagaland gave us this illustration of Bible translation work in northeast India.
Another example of adapting the Bible’s language to today’s cultural situations was related to me by the head of the Bible Society in Nepal. He told of one of the projects of the United Bible Societies which was done in a part of the world in which the people had not seen snow. The translators, therefore, decided to translate Isaiah 1:18—“...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as the inside of a coconut...” Is the inside of a coconut the same as snow? Both are white, but there the similarity stops. Snow is like God’s forgiveness not only in that it is white but also in the way it covers and in its loveliness and probably in many other aspects. Even slight changes in God’s Word can have significant consequences in loss of meaning or even in imparting the wrong meaning.
In a United Bible Societies translation in the Ulithian language of the South Pacific, “dove” was changed to a local bird called a gigi (“Mog Mog and the Fig Tree,” Record, Nov. 1987, pp. 6-7).
Further examples of this are given in Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow, of Wycliffe Bible Translators:
Matt. 8:20—“foxes” was translated “coyotes” in the Mazahua language of Mexico.
Mark 4:21—“on a candlestick” was translated “on a grain bin” in the Korku language of India.
Lk. 9:62—“plough” was translated “hoe” in the Carib language of Central America.
Lk. 12:24—“storehouse” was translated “basket” in the Villa Alta Zapotec language of Mexico.
Matt. 20:22—“the cup” was translated “pain” in the Copainala Zoque of Mexico.
Matt. 10:34—“a sword” was translated “there will be dissension among the people” in the Mazahua language of Mexico.
The Zapotec translation of Mexico changed “the babe leaped in her womb” of Luke 1:41 to “the baby played.”
Consider some other examples of the way these versions change the Word of God to conform with culture. The following illustrations were given to us by Ross Hodsdon of Bibles International, formerly with Wycliffe:
In a translation for Eskimos in Alaska, “lamb” was replaced with “seal pup.”
In a translation in the Makusi language of Brazil, “son of man” was replaced with “older brother.”
In another Wycliffe translation “fig tree” was replaced with “banana tree.”
We believe this type of thing is wrong. When one departs from the principle of a literal translation, the mind of the translator and the culture and understanding of the people become the authority rather than the actual words of Scriptures.
It is important to emphasize that we are not talking about a wooden literalness, but about an unwavering commitment to the actual wording of the Bible text.
From these few examples, you see how far-removed the “dynamic equivalency” rendering can be from the original text. Dynamic equivalency allows translators this strange liberty to change, delete from, and add to the Word of God to such an extent that it no longer even can be called the Word of God.
It is easy to see the unreasonable ends of this dynamic equivalency principle. Those using dynamic equivalency are not afraid to change God’s Words in order to relate to modern cultures.
We must remember that God is the Author of History. He made the nations and “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). The prophet Daniel knew this, as he testified, “Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan. 2:20-21).
God was not caught off guard when the Scriptures were given in a certain period of history to a certain people within a certain culture. God had before ordained that His Word be delivered through the very cultural and historical situations in which it was given. God created the Hebrew and Greek languages as vehicles for the transmission of His eternal Word to man. Further, God created the nation Israel through which to deliver the Old Testament Scriptures, and God created the Roman empire into which Jesus Christ came to be the atonement for man’s sin, and God created the church through which to communicate the mysteries of the New Testament Scriptures. Therefore, the cultural terminology of the Bible is not incidental to the communication of God’s Word; it is essential for such communication.
The cultural terminology of the Bible, such as that pertaining to farming and slavery, is to be translated carefully from the original, then explained by evangelists and preachers. It is not the job of the Bible translator to become in the process of his work as a translator the evangelist and preacher. Of course the translator can add explanatory footnotes if he so desires and in this way give definitions of the words used in the new version. He can also make dictionaries and commentaries to be used in conjunction with his Bible translation. This is certainly wiser than taking the liberty of changing God’s Word, and it has been the method followed by godly translators of old.
We must remember that God is the Author of History. He made the nations and “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). The prophet Daniel knew this, as he testified, “Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan. 2:20-21).
God was not caught off guard when the Scriptures were given in a certain period of history to a certain people within a certain culture. God had before ordained that His Word be delivered through the very cultural and historical situations in which it was given. God created the Hebrew and Greek languages as vehicles for the transmission of His eternal Word to man. Further, God created the nation Israel through which to deliver the Old Testament Scriptures, and God created the Roman empire into which Jesus Christ came to be the atonement for man’s sin, and God created the church through which to communicate the mysteries of the New Testament Scriptures. Therefore, the cultural terminology of the Bible is not incidental to the communication of God’s Word; it is essential for such communication.
The cultural terminology of the Bible, such as that pertaining to farming and slavery, is to be translated carefully from the original, then explained by evangelists and preachers. It is not the job of the Bible translator to become in the process of his work as a translator the evangelist and preacher. Of course the translator can add explanatory footnotes if he so desires and in this way give definitions of the words used in the new version. He can also make dictionaries and commentaries to be used in conjunction with his Bible translation. This is certainly wiser than taking the liberty of changing God’s Word, and it has been the method followed by godly translators of old.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY CONFUSES SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT WITH NATURAL UNDERSTANDING
Consider the following Scriptures which teach that man is unable to understand the Word of God apart from divine assistance: 1 Cor. 2:14-16; John 16:8-13; Matt. 13:9-16; Luke 24:44-45; Acts 11:21; 16:14; Prov. 1:23.
Dynamic equivalency fails to recognize the root problem in regard to man’s inability to understand the Word of God, which is spiritual blindness and not cultural ignorance or lack of literary education.
We see an example of this in Acts 13:44-48. Here the Jews, in whose cultural setting the Bible was primarily written, rejected the Scriptures, while the idolatrous Gentiles accepted it. Culture and language were not the problem; rebellion of the heart was the problem. This remains true today.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY CONFUSES TRANSLATION WITH EVANGELISM AND TEACHING
The translator is to faithfully transmit the words and message from the original into the receptor language as literally as possible. In so doing he should obviously attempt to make the translation as plain for the readers AS POSSIBLE without doing damage to the original words and form. The translator is not free to simplify that which God has not simplified. Utter faithfulness to the original text should be the very chiefest concern of the Bible translator.
It is the evangelist’s and the teacher’s job, then, to explain that message to the people. The Bible translator whose overriding goal is to make the Bible clear to the unsaved of necessity becomes a Bible corrupter.
The Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the Scriptures and could not understand what he read. It was Philip the evangelist’s job to explain the Scriptures to this man (Acts 8:26-33). If Philip had believed the theories of dynamic equivalency he might have returned home after this experience and rewritten and simplified the book of Isaiah, the book which the Ethiopian eunuch had been reading! Was it not obvious that the sincere but unsaved Ethiopian had not been able to understand the Bible? Was it not obvious that many other men must be in the same condition as this Ethiopian? Was it not obvious that there are not enough evangelists to speak personally to every lost person and to explain the Bible for them? Well, then, we must reword the Bible and change its difficult, antiquated words (the book of Isaiah was already about 800 years old when the eunuch was reading it) so that the non-Christian can pick it up and “understand it without difficulty.” Certainly this would please God. Such is the thinking so commonly held among those who are promoting dynamic equivalency.
But Philip and the early Christian leaders would have had their hands cut off rather than to have tampered with God’s holy words. That Book is Holy! Is it really? Is it right to inscribe “Holy Bible” on the cover of this book? Yes, God’s name is holy and reverend, we are told in the Scriptures (Psa. 111:9), but we also read that “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Psa. 138:2)! If God’s name is holy and reverend, and God has magnified His Word above all His name, then His Word is even holier and more reverend than His name! Amazing, but true. Woe unto those who are tampering with this unspeakably Holy Book.
Consider the following Scriptures which teach that man is unable to understand the Word of God apart from divine assistance: 1 Cor. 2:14-16; John 16:8-13; Matt. 13:9-16; Luke 24:44-45; Acts 11:21; 16:14; Prov. 1:23.
Dynamic equivalency fails to recognize the root problem in regard to man’s inability to understand the Word of God, which is spiritual blindness and not cultural ignorance or lack of literary education.
We see an example of this in Acts 13:44-48. Here the Jews, in whose cultural setting the Bible was primarily written, rejected the Scriptures, while the idolatrous Gentiles accepted it. Culture and language were not the problem; rebellion of the heart was the problem. This remains true today.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY CONFUSES TRANSLATION WITH EVANGELISM AND TEACHING
The translator is to faithfully transmit the words and message from the original into the receptor language as literally as possible. In so doing he should obviously attempt to make the translation as plain for the readers AS POSSIBLE without doing damage to the original words and form. The translator is not free to simplify that which God has not simplified. Utter faithfulness to the original text should be the very chiefest concern of the Bible translator.
It is the evangelist’s and the teacher’s job, then, to explain that message to the people. The Bible translator whose overriding goal is to make the Bible clear to the unsaved of necessity becomes a Bible corrupter.
The Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the Scriptures and could not understand what he read. It was Philip the evangelist’s job to explain the Scriptures to this man (Acts 8:26-33). If Philip had believed the theories of dynamic equivalency he might have returned home after this experience and rewritten and simplified the book of Isaiah, the book which the Ethiopian eunuch had been reading! Was it not obvious that the sincere but unsaved Ethiopian had not been able to understand the Bible? Was it not obvious that many other men must be in the same condition as this Ethiopian? Was it not obvious that there are not enough evangelists to speak personally to every lost person and to explain the Bible for them? Well, then, we must reword the Bible and change its difficult, antiquated words (the book of Isaiah was already about 800 years old when the eunuch was reading it) so that the non-Christian can pick it up and “understand it without difficulty.” Certainly this would please God. Such is the thinking so commonly held among those who are promoting dynamic equivalency.
But Philip and the early Christian leaders would have had their hands cut off rather than to have tampered with God’s holy words. That Book is Holy! Is it really? Is it right to inscribe “Holy Bible” on the cover of this book? Yes, God’s name is holy and reverend, we are told in the Scriptures (Psa. 111:9), but we also read that “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Psa. 138:2)! If God’s name is holy and reverend, and God has magnified His Word above all His name, then His Word is even holier and more reverend than His name! Amazing, but true. Woe unto those who are tampering with this unspeakably Holy Book.
First, dynamic equivalency says an overly literal translation is not correct.Those who promote dynamic equivalency inevitably begin by giving examples of wildly improper translations and using these as justification for their paraphrasing methodology. Eugene Nida does this in Every Man in His Own Language:
“Literal translations—the easiest and the most dangerous—are the source of many mistakes. The missionary in Latin America who constantly used the phrase ‘it came to pass’ scarcely realized that it only meant to the people, ‘something came in order to pass there.’ ... literally the story of Mary ‘sitting at the feet of Jesus,’ only to discover later that what they had said really described Mary as ‘on Jesus’ lap.’ It is one thing to speak of ‘heaping coals of fire on one’s head’ if one is talking to an English-speaking congregation; but if one speaks that way in some parts of Africa, he can be badly misunderstood, for that is one method of torture and killing” (Eugene A. Nida, God’s Word in Man’s Language, Harper and Brothers, 1952, p. 17).
This is a straw man to draw attention away from the improper liberties dynamic equivalency proponents take with the Word of God. The solution to a woodenly literal translation is not dynamic equivalency, but a reasonable, spiritual translation which seeks to be true to the original words and form and which does not take the frightful liberties of dynamic equivalency, but is willing to let the Word of God say what it says rather than change it—even for the sake of simplification. The proper Bible translation methodology has been called an “essentially literal translation” and a “formal equivalence translation” as opposed to dynamic equivalency.
“Literal translations—the easiest and the most dangerous—are the source of many mistakes. The missionary in Latin America who constantly used the phrase ‘it came to pass’ scarcely realized that it only meant to the people, ‘something came in order to pass there.’ ... literally the story of Mary ‘sitting at the feet of Jesus,’ only to discover later that what they had said really described Mary as ‘on Jesus’ lap.’ It is one thing to speak of ‘heaping coals of fire on one’s head’ if one is talking to an English-speaking congregation; but if one speaks that way in some parts of Africa, he can be badly misunderstood, for that is one method of torture and killing” (Eugene A. Nida, God’s Word in Man’s Language, Harper and Brothers, 1952, p. 17).
This is a straw man to draw attention away from the improper liberties dynamic equivalency proponents take with the Word of God. The solution to a woodenly literal translation is not dynamic equivalency, but a reasonable, spiritual translation which seeks to be true to the original words and form and which does not take the frightful liberties of dynamic equivalency, but is willing to let the Word of God say what it says rather than change it—even for the sake of simplification. The proper Bible translation methodology has been called an “essentially literal translation” and a “formal equivalence translation” as opposed to dynamic equivalency.
Second, dynamic equivalency says the translator must interpret. This is true! An example is Isaiah 7:14 where it is arguably possible to translate the Hebrew word “almah” either as “young woman” or as “virgin.” The Christ-honoring, Bible-believing translator will always choose virgin because he knows that the verse is a Messianic prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. This is the result of interpretation
All translators face this, but the fact that a translator must interpret things in Scripture before they are translated does not justify the extreme liberties which are being taken in dynamic equivalency versions.
Furthermore, there is a vast difference between the necessity of interpreting wordsand that of interpreting passages. Consider the following from Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College:
“Whenever a translator decides that a given English word best captures the meaning of a word in the original text, the decision implies an interpretation. But there is a crucial difference between linguistic interpretation (decisions regarding what English words best express Hebrew or Greek words) and thematic interpretation of the meaning of a text. Failure to distinguish between these two types of interpretation has led to both confusion and license in translation. ... It is time to call a moratorium on the misleading and ultimately false claim that all translation is interpretation. For essentially literal translations, translation is translation, and its task is to express what the original says. Only for dynamic equivalent translations is all translation potentially interpretation--something added to the original or changed from the original to produce what the translators think the passage means” (Ryken, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation, 2002, pp. 85, 89).
All translators face this, but the fact that a translator must interpret things in Scripture before they are translated does not justify the extreme liberties which are being taken in dynamic equivalency versions.
Furthermore, there is a vast difference between the necessity of interpreting wordsand that of interpreting passages. Consider the following from Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College:
“Whenever a translator decides that a given English word best captures the meaning of a word in the original text, the decision implies an interpretation. But there is a crucial difference between linguistic interpretation (decisions regarding what English words best express Hebrew or Greek words) and thematic interpretation of the meaning of a text. Failure to distinguish between these two types of interpretation has led to both confusion and license in translation. ... It is time to call a moratorium on the misleading and ultimately false claim that all translation is interpretation. For essentially literal translations, translation is translation, and its task is to express what the original says. Only for dynamic equivalent translations is all translation potentially interpretation--something added to the original or changed from the original to produce what the translators think the passage means” (Ryken, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation, 2002, pp. 85, 89).
- Status