SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Does inerrancy matter?? or is dynamic equivalence sufficient

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi ccchhhrrriiisss,

This is not a KJV only thread even though I assume that you know my position,
It is rather precisely a thread on which type of translation method is best for the inspired Scriptures Dynamic Equivalent or an essentially literal translation philosophy, Even though we might take some short rabit trails off of this specific topic, to answer questiones or make points that are beyond these boundries, of which I will write specificaly true to my conviction. I do not desire to make this specific thread a KJV Only thread.

By keeping this thread a Dynamic Equivalent vs essentially literal translation philosophy thread, It provides me with an Arsenal of highly respected and Educated Christian elitist of whom I can position myself with, such as some whom I have mentioned thus far, to me none of that matters except when it comes to contending for the truth with a post Descartes generation.

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote /// I know that Brother Ron Bailey ("philologos") has offered quite a bit of insight here at SermonIndex and elsewhere into the translation of the KJV and has helped clear up some of the myths and widespread assumptions as well.///

This would not be necessary for this thread, For the differing issues of the accuracy is not so much as of one of the intelect as some may wrongly suppose but rather it is a difference of perspective,

we can see a difference of this type of philosophy even in our different translations.

such as when Henry Morris, Ph.D. pointed out

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19)

and of which he as myself concluded that such a passage reveales

'Oral or written testimony of human observers, no matter how trustworthy they may be, is still subject to human error, and not "inerrant" in the same way as Scripture. Christians must always remember that the written Word of God is more certain than personal memories or impressions. The experiences we have must never be viewed as validating God's Word. Rather, God's Word validates our experiences.' https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=48089&forum=34

I personaly would not come to that conclusion by this translation.

NIV 2 pet ch 1:19
/And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts./

As Henery said "The experiences we have must never be viewed as validating God's Word. Rather, God's Word validates our experiences.'"






 2013/1/18 15:14Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: Does inerrancy matter?? or is dynamic equivalence sufficient

Bible translation Differences (criteria for excellence in reading and choosing a bible translation) Crossway books 2004 by Leland Ryken (Ph.D.,University of Oregon) Professor of English at Wheaton College and was Literary stylist for the (ESV) translation

endorsed by Dr.Wayne Grudem, Dr.R.Kent Hughes, Dr J.I.Packer, and cheif editor of of World Magazine Marvin Olasky

p.15
Dynamic equivalent translators believe that the translator has the duty to make interpretive decisions for the ignorant reader. Eugene Nida, for example, claims that "the average reader is usually much less capable of making correct judgments about...alternative meanings than is the translator, who can make use of the best scholarly judgements on ambiguous passages" But if this is true, why is it that the translators, with their allegedly superior and reliable knowledge,cannot agree amoung themselves? instead of leading the Bible reading public into a better grasp of the original text, dynamic equivalent translations have confused the public by multiplying the range of renditiones of various Bible passages

If we ask why dynamic equivalent translations have destabilized the text, the answer is obvious: There are no adequate controls on the translation process. Once a translation committee does not feel bound to translate the words of the original but only the ideas, and once it decides to its satisfaction what a passage means, it is free then to choose whatever words it thinks best express the meaning that it has decided is correct. Clearly more controls on translation than this are needed.

 2013/1/18 15:34Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4582


 Re:

Hi proudpapa,

I don't recall learning of your particular position on the topic. However, my post was not about "KJV-only" but about explaining what "dynamic equivalent" means and how a sense of it was used in the translation of what are often referred to as "literal" translations (like the KJV).

That was the purpose for my example and reason for my post. There are no literal word-for-word translations of the Word of God from Greek. It takes some determination on the part of translators to determine the best possible rendering for words, phrases and grammar.

I completely agree with the notion about the Word of God. I wouldn't -- nor would I want any translator -- to change the Word of God for any earthly form of "validation." However, I don't have any inside information that would make me think that any particular translator or scholarly version has done this.


_________________
Christopher

 2013/1/18 15:35Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: ccchhhrrriiisss

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote
///I completely agree with the notion about the Word of God. I wouldn't -- nor would I want any translator -- to change the Word of God for any earthly form of "validation." However, I don't have any inside information that would make me think that any particular translator or scholarly version has done this.///

WE would not use a (NWT) because of some of the theological biasness that the JWs have conformed the Text to, such as

John ch 1 (NWT) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

do we see the slight difference from

John ch 1 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

yet this difference has massive theological ramificationes.

Like wise I am not a Calvinist, I have given many reasons for this that I have expressed in various threads

And even if I where as many are, I still would as many do not want my theological biasness inserted in my translation as What the NIV has done with its reformed theology.

For instance The NIV inserts the word 'sinful nature' In their translation the phrase 'sinful nature' is not a biblical word it is a theological word but no where in the greek or hebrew is the word sin and nature combined,
If you want as most likely you do believe that the Greek word Sarx not only encompasses the flesh but also some sinful nature that is your choice and I am not going to go into great deal in this thread argueing over it as I have in threads specificaly of that topic in the past.
But regardless we must conclude that men as Finney and Paris Reidhead and others did not and do not believe that sarx means sinful nature, As far as I am aware all essentially Literal bible translationes including the Reformed (ESV) and all old translations translate sarx as flesh

further more one of the key versus for the doctrine of sinful nature is

psalms 51 v 5 that reads

kjv 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NASB 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

ESV 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me

This verse has been of much controversy since Augustine, but in there defense all of these essentially Literal bible translationes translated this verse basicaly the same, even though I relize that most of the translators whom translated these scriptures are of the Augustinian persuasion they stayed consistent to the text.

Edwin H. Palmer executive secretary on the team that prepared the New International Version of the Bible was a staunch calvinist on page 13 of his book Five Points of Calvinism, [Edwin H. Palmer] 1972 baker books

He writes /The psalmist says that depravity applies even to babies: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.(51:5) This does not mean that sexual intercourse is evil, but rather that from conception and birth man is polluted with sin because of the fall of Adam./

But the problem is that many of us are not of the Augustinian tradition so we do not necessarily interpret this text as What Edwin does, many do and that is fine that he rights a book on his view and even fine if he rights a commentary on this passage but what is not fine is that they write a translation with this biasness such as this inserted into the text. As what the NIV has done and market it as an accurate translation

Psalm ch 51:3 NIV Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.




 2013/1/18 17:00Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 John Piper '..would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset... '

John Piper on the NIV

The New International Version

Key question: the NIV appeared in 1978. I read it. Why didn't I use it? The reason I didn't use it is the reason I am here tonight. The NIV is the best-selling modern translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in print. The NIV makes up about 30% of all Bible sales. Among evangelicals the percentage would be far above 30% and is probably the Bible most evangelicals read most often. And the one most pastors use in preaching. Why am I not on board?

Not only am I not on board. I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church. I feel so strongly about this that I volunteered to do this tonight before I was asked. There is no coercion here. I feel what I am about to say with a passion built up over 25 years. I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it.

Now let me say again that the NIV is the precious Word of God. Oh, how careful we must be not to belittle the Word of God. And yet we must not put any human translation above criticism. God has used the NIV to bring millions of people to faith in Christ. But at the same time I believe there have been negative effects that could be avoided. My biggest concern has to do with preaching. When a paraphrase becomes the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the church, preaching is weakened—robust expository exultation in the pulpit is made more difficult. Preaching that gives clear explanations and arguments from the wording of specific Biblical texts tends to be undermined when a Bible paraphrases instead of preserving the original wording on good English. And when that kind of preaching is undermined, the whole level of Christian thinking in the church goes down, and a Bible-saturated worldview is weakened, and the ability of the people—and even the pastors themselves-to root their thoughts and affections in firm Biblical ground diminishes

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/good-english-with-minimal-translation-why-bethlehem-uses-the-esv




 2013/1/18 19:41Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 John Piper on paraphrased Bible translations

What is your take on paraphrased Bible translations?

Back in the 60s we loved Phillips Paraphrase. And the reason we could love it is because it was called a paraphrase. There's not a single Bible edition published today that will call itself a paraphrase, to their shame!

Everything is a "translation", and the reason is because, with the emergence of dynamic equivalence understandings of translation, anytime you try to distinguish between a paraphrase and a translation the person who holds one of those views will say, "All translation is paraphrase."

I say, "Well, I know what you mean. You can't find an exact equivalent to every Greek and Hebrew word and every Greek and Hebrew construction in English. That's true, you can't. But there's a difference between bringing 'obedience of faith' into English as 'obedience of faith' and 'obedience that comes from faith.'"

The first one gets very close to the Greek genitive 'obedience of faith' and includes all of its ambiguities. The second one tells the reader right off the bat what the translator thinks that ambiguity means. And I don't think translators should do that unless they have to (and they often have to).

So, yes, there's a difference with paraphrases, and they're valuable as interpretations.

So we ought to put right on the front of The Message, "A Paraphrase of the Bible," and then it would be valuable! Everybody could read it and say, "This is Eugene Peterson's interpretation of the Bible," and we would get gobs of insight from it!

But if you start substituting that kind of effort for your regular, daily Bible reading translation, then you're basically reading a commentary and depending on it and calling it the word of God.

I don't buy into the view that "Since every translation involves paraphrase, therefore there's no difference between a paraphrase and a translation." We ought to distinguish, and we ought to publish both and make the reader aware of how he should use them

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/what-do-you-think-about-paraphrased-bible-translations

 2013/1/18 19:52Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4582


 Re:

Hi proudpapa,

The key to what I said was "scholarly" translations. There are undoubtedly translations and versions of the Bible that are born out of an attempt to alter the Word of God to say what biased individuals WANT it to say. Their translation work itself is called into question because of the pre-ordained goals that polluted the "methods" that they used.

However, I would be hard-pressed to place the NIV (1984) in the same boat with those individuals. It was translation that included scholars who came from a wide range of protestant denominations and groups who checked, cross-checked and "peer reviewed" one another's work.

I would also be careful about stating that the NIV "inserted" words into any particular passage without knowing for certain if this was a difference in the ancient texts that they used versus what they felt to be more reliable than Desiderius Erasmus's personal translation (the Textus Receptus) that was relied upon for older translations and versions.

There are obviously some differences between the NIV and KJV. However, as many have pointed out, many of these differences were simply due to differences in the original consulted texts themselves rather than any result of "dynamic equivalence." In all such cases, each difference must first be compared using the words, grammar, and usage of the translation (NIV, KJV, NASB, etc...) with the texts from which they were translated. Then, a comparison of the original texts must occur to see if the differences can be attributed to wording in the different consulted texts or, if those Greek words are the same, from differences in how they are translated into English.

I don't believe that anyone should assume or suggest that the translators of a scholarly, peer-reviewed scholarly translation like the NIV was worded differently from Textus Receptus derived translations because of a inherent biases in how the completed work should be worded. I hope that this makes sense. The translators of the NIV made it clear in their explanation of their translation that it was undertook without reference to doctrinal biases. While this could be incorrect, I have never found any reason to doubt them and I have spoken via email, snail mail and telephone with several of them -- even asking specific questions that referenced much-repeated accusations or questions about their methods and specific differences.

By the way, I am NOT a Calvinist either. I no more find the tenets of Calvinism in my NIV (1984) than I do in my KJV (1611/1769). I hope that this makes some sense.


_________________
Christopher

 2013/1/18 20:11Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi ccchhhrrriiisss

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote ///I would also be careful about stating that the NIV "inserted" words into any particular passage without knowing for certain if this was a difference in the ancient texts that they used versus what they felt to be more reliable than Desiderius Erasmus's personal translation (the Textus Receptus) that was relied upon for older translations and versions.///

ccchhhrrriiisss I am well aware of the difference of the recieved text(the Textus Receptus)and the Eclectic Alexandrian text, and where they differ in our translations.
I would guestimate that I have well over a hundred books on this this sort of subject from all perspectives rather it be White,Carson,Hills,Burgeon,Strauss,Ehrman,Sullivan,Jones,
Grady and so on, I have all of the NIV Defense Books of Ken Barker that I am aware of.
The Best 2 books by far that I have on inspiration are translations of 2 German books the one by Gerhard Maier The end of the historical critical method and the other that is the best of all written by an ex student of Rudolf Bultmann, Eta Linnemann 'Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical, (translated by Robert W Yarbrough)'

I would not completely agree with any book that I have but I would highly recommend (Eta Linnemanns) book to everyone

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote ///By the way, I am NOT a Calvinist either. I no more find the tenets of Calvinism in my NIV (1984) than I do in my KJV (1611/1769). I hope that this makes some sense.///

I have already showed clearly one tenent in the NIV, that neither Finney nor Paris Reidhead would have approved of since they clearly spoke against such a doctrine

I might post what Radmacher and Hodges wrote about the NIVs usage of the word sinful nature for sarx but I am such a slow typer I may put it off for another day, It is more detailed and better articulated than what I have written thus far.



 2013/1/18 21:02Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 ligonier ministries the teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul

About Translation Styles and the ESV

Keeping Step with History’s Great Translations

We chose the English Standard Version (ESV) as the text of the study bible because of the combination of its accuracy and its literary qualities. The ESV stands in the tradition of translation begun by William Tyndale in 1526 and continued by the King James Version (1611), the Revised Version (1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971), and the New King James Version (1983). The goal of translations in this tradition has been faithfulness to the language of the original texts as well as dignified beauty in the English translation.

Literal Translation

The translators of the ESV followed an essentially literal philosophy of translation. This philosophy aims to translate the precise words of the original text while also taking into consideration differences between the source language and the target language. The intent is to maintain as much as possible the structure of the original text, allowing the reader to discern the distinct styles of the different biblical authors while also retaining maximum clarity. This provides a translation that is transparent to the original text --- allowing modern readers to read what the original author wrote.

Dynamic Equivalence Translation

In the middle of the twentieth century another philosophy of translation rose to prominence, a philosophy commonly referred to as "dynamic equivalence." Dynamic equivalence emphasizes the reader rather than the words of the original text. If something in the original text may be too difficult or obscure for the modern reader, the original text is translated with words or phrases intended to communicate the same general concept --- a dynamic equivalent. Sometimes this is described as thought-for-thought translation as opposed to an essentially literal word-for-word type of translation. Most recent English Bible translations use dynamic equivalence. A list of these popular translations would include the Good News Bible (1976), the New International Version (1978), the Revised English Bible (1989), the New Living Translation (1996), and Today's New International Version (2005).

One of the fundamental disadvantages of dynamic equivalence translation is that it blurs the line between translation and commentary. Because the books of the Bible are ancient texts there are obscure idioms, customs, and words found in them. The same is true of any ancient text. Essentially literal translations attempt to translate what the author actually wrote and either explain a difficult word or phrase in a footnote or leave such explanations to commentators. Dynamic equivalence translations generally attempt to remove any such difficulties from the text by offering what the translators believe to be a more understandable modern English equivalent. This, by its very nature, however, often involves more subjective interpretation than translation. It also tends to remove any objective controls on the translators. If faithfulness to the words of the original text is rejected as the primary goal of translation, there are no reliable controls. Each translation committee determines for itself the degree to which a translation may depart from the words of the original text. The result is predictably confusing.

Translation Styles Compared

In his book The Word of God in English (pp. 81–82), Leland Ryken provides a helpful illustration of this problem by listing various translations of the middle part of 1 Thessalonians 1:3. First, he provides four translations that follow an essentially literal philosophy of translation:


"... your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ..." (KJV).
"...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (RSV).
"...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (NASB).
"...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (ESV).

Because these translations follow an essentially literal philosophy of translations, their translations of the original text are almost identical, and the reader knows what the original author actually wrote. By way of contrast, we may compare the way in which dynamic equivalent translations translate the same text:


"...your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (NIV, TNIV).
"...how you put your faith into practice, how your love made you work so hard, and how your hope in our Lord Jesus Christ is firm" (GNB).
"...your faithful work, your loving deeds, and your continual anticipation of the return of our Lord Jesus Christ" (NLT).
"...your faith and loving work and...your firm hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (CEV).

Not only are these translations strikingly different from the essentially literal translations, they are also strikingly different from each other. All of these translations insert explanatory words or phrases that are not found in the original text. Some completely replace the original phrases with their subjective interpretations. The line between translation and interpretation becomes hopelessly blurred, and the reader is left uncertain of what the original author wrote.

Understanding the problems caused by dynamic equivalence, the translators of the ESV chose to provide an essentially literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Also, just as the translators who worked on the King James Version worked from existing English translations, the translators of the ESV used an existing translation (the Revised Standard Version ) as a stylistic starting point as they translated the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Revised Standard Version (1971) is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901), which itself is a revision of the King James Version of 1611. The ESV, with its faithfulness to the original texts and high literary quality, is one of the best available contemporary English translations of the Bible. It is for this reason that Ligonier Ministries encourages its use.

http://www.ligonier.org/reformation-study-bible/about/why-esv/

 2013/1/18 21:09Profile









 Re: ligonier ministries the teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul

Reading this thread I am reminded if two men in law enforcement. One uses the nine millimeter Baretta weapon. Tbe other a Glock. They always get into an argument over which weapon is superior. Tbe question really boils down to how effective are they with their weapon.

I ask you, brothers, how well do you know your Bible? Whether it be dynamic equivikent or literal translation. How well can you wield your sword in the power of the Spirit? How much time do you spend reading, meditating or memorizing in tbe word? I see books about the literal verses tbe dynamic. You got books about why your particular translation is tbe best. But how much time do you spend in that translation. Actually reading it? I mean reading tbe Bibke. Not books about the Bible.

Nielsen did a survey and found the average American spends four more hours a day in front of the TV. Do you spend that much time. Or even half that time in your Bible.

These questions occurred to me as I was glancing at tbis thread.

Bearmaster.

 2013/1/18 23:40





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy