The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Modern Bibles

John,

I have to confess that I am really perplexed by what you wrote, e.g.,

Why am I perplexed? Because when I read my Greek text (either TR or WH) and compare it to the NIV I see myriad deviations, omissions, additions, and even outright misinterpretations of the text. In short, it is antithetical to what you say you see.

It cannot be denied that translating any language into that of another is a daunting task. And it is also true that there are times when the target language has no equivalent word that is found in the source language. This is a particularly difficult situation. However, it is wrong to diminish the vast difference between the Dynamic Equivalence method vs the Formal Equivalence method by using such illustrations as you have. The underlying philosophy of the Dynamic Equivalence method is simply but I think accurately summarized by, "the meaning of the text is far more important than the individual words themselves". Whereas, in the Formal Equivalence method, its philosophy would be likewise summarized by, "the individual words are far more important than the translator's attempt to grasp the meaning of them since it is the individual words that give the meaning."

Let me throw out a few tidbits which I think are relevant to this discussion.

1. Proposal: "To the degree one embraces Dynamic Equivalence, to the same and proportional degree one denies verbal plenary inspiration."

2. The translator's task is to be faithful in preserving the original words as it is translated in another language and not to interpret the text itself. It is the responsibility of the Church to teach its members the meaning of the text and apply it through the ministration of the Holy Spirit Who is the actual Author of it.

In His grace,