DOES THE KING JAMES BIBLE USE ãDYNAMIC EQUIVALENCYä

DOES THE KING JAMES BIBLE USE "DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY"?

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2000. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites and cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, give us your name, address, and the name of the church you are a member of, and request to be placed on the list. Please note that this is not a free service. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and each subscriber is expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of address, send your name and the request to fbns@wayoflife.org. This is not an automated list. Changes in the database often require two to four days to activate. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 17th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site -- http://www.wayoflife.org.]

April 25, 2000 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) -- When the charge is made against the use of the dynamic equivalency method of translation in modern Bible versions such as the New International Version and the Today’s English Version, some protest that the King James Bible also uses this method. An example of this was brought to my attention this week. It appeared in a letter to Pastor Andrew Rusnacko, Bible Baptist Temple, Euclid, Ohio, from a man who reads his church Newsletter. I had the privilege of preaching a Bible conference at Bible Baptist Temple recently, and it was a joy to get to know Pastor Rusnacko. I praise the Lord for his gracious but uncompromising zeal for the truth.

Now to the letter which was written to Pastor Rusnacko:

"For some time now, I have been receiving your Bible Baptist Temple Newsletter. I usually find some very interesting reading in it, but I have been disturbed by a couple of things I’ve read in the last two issues. In the February 2000 issue, there is a statement in the column titled ‘God’s Words or Just His Ideas?’ Toward the end of the column, I read, ‘If your Bible is a King James Bible, it preserves God’s words because it was translated using "formal equivalence." All other Bibles were translated using "dynamic equivalency," in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the "idea."’ This statement is incorrect as well as misleading.

"In the first place, the New American Standard Bible and the New King James Version are literal (formal equivalency, word-for-word) translations. They do not employ the dynamic equivalency method of translation as a whole. These translations are both very good and reflect the translators’ goal of being faithful to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

"In the second place, the statement implies that dynamic equivalence is not a translation method that God is pleased with. While it is true that some translators may have a particular agenda in mind in translating, dynamic equivalency is a legitimate method of translation. In fact, no formal equivalency translation can get away from using dynamic equivalency in certain contexts. Generally, those contexts would be idioms and other expressions where a ‘literal’ translation would make no sense. Sometimes, dynamic equivalency was used just because they wanted to. Let me give you some examples.

"In Genesis 30:2, the KJV says, ‘And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel.’ The Hebrew literally says that Jacob’s nose became hot. This is a Hebrew idiom that refers to becoming angry. The KJV translators understood this and correctly interpreted this as anger. This expression is also used in Exodus 4:14, 1 Samuel 11:6, 2 Samuel 6:7, and many other places in the Hebrew Old Testament.

"In Acts 12:4, the KJV says, ‘And when he [Herod Agrippa I] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.’ There is a problem with this verse if formal equivalence is our only goal in translation. The word ‘Easter:’ is incorrect. The Greek word is pascha, which means ‘Passover.’ Why did the KJV translators use the term "Easter,’ a word that was not in existence in the first century? Probably because it had greater relevance to the target audience of readers. But the fact is that Luke was referring to Passover, not what came to be Easter. The date for Easter wasn’t even decided on until the first Nicean Council in A.D. 325.

"In your newsletter for March (dated 29FEB00, #500), you mention that you will be preaching messages on Sunday nights regarding ‘The BIBLE vs. ____________’ The one called ‘The BIBLE vs. the NIV’ troubles me greatly. This implies that the NIV isn’t the Bible. I myself have some problems with some parts of the NIV, but it is still the Word of God, just as the KJV is. I urge you to reconsider preaching this message. There are enough misguided people out there who think that the only version in the English language that God has blessed is the ‘AV1611.’ Christianity doesn’t need any more nuts like that.

"Thank you for considering my concerns."

__________________________

The writer of this letter is correct in observing that the King James Version is not the only English translation which follows the literal or formal equivalency method of translation. The statement in the Bible Baptist Temple Newsletter was a little too broad. It should say, "THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF other Bibles were translated using ‘dynamic equivalency.’" This is true. The vast majority of Bibles being translated today follow the dynamic equivalency method. This includes the Bibles produced by the three largest organizations involved in translation: the United Bible Societies (composed of 135 national Bible societies), Wycliffe Bible Translators, and the International Bible Society (publisher of the New International Version, which merged in 1992 with Living Bibles International).

Having said that, I will hasten to note that this letter contains many common mistakes pertaining to the Bible version issue, and I want to publish a refutation of it under the following points. One of the reasons I want to publish this letter is that the writer commits a common mistake. He finds a small error in the statements of a KJV defender and proceeds to pretend that the entire defense of the KJV is nothing but error. This is to "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24). Note the following "camels" contained in this letter:

FIRST, THE AUTHOR OF THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATES HIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY IS AND HOW IT IS USED IN CURRENT BIBLE TRANSLATION WORK. He claims that the KJV’s translation of the Hebrew word "aph" in Genesis 30:2 and elsewhere is an example of dynamic equivalency. This is nonsense. That is the standard Hebrew word for "anger," and I don’t know of any Bible version whatsoever, even the loosest paraphrase, that translates this Hebrew word as "nose became hot." Even interlinear Old Testaments that give the most wooden literal translation of Hebrew words translate this word as "anger" or "rage." The KJV rendering of Genesis 30:2 is a literal and accurate translation of the Hebrew; it is not dynamic equivalency.

What is dynamic equivalency? Dynamic equivalency translation allows the translator to take great liberties with the Hebrew and Greek text, even to change the meaning. The focus of dynamic equivalency is not faithfulness to the original text but the supposed "impact" of the translation upon the reader. The dynamic equivalency translators often change the meaning. For example, the NIV changes "cornerstone" to "capstone" in 1 Peter 2:7. This is not a faithful translation of any sort; it is an interpretation, and a very weak one at that. All faithful translations of the past have translated this as "cornerstone" or "head of the corner." The KJV translation "head of the corner" is precisely what the Greek text says. Another example of dynamic equivalency is in the NIV rendering of John 16:31. The Greek text says, "Do you now believe?" but the NIV changes this to, "You believe at last!" That is not faithful translation; it is interpretation, modification, and paraphrase. That is precisely what dynamic equivalency is.

The other example the letter-writer gives of alleged dynamic equivalency in the KJV is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Those who claim the King James translators wrongly used the word "Easter" ignore the fact that this translation actually goes back to William Tyndale’s translation of 1534. All of the English Bibles from Tyndale to the KJV 1611 (the Cranmer, Coverdale, Matthews, Bishops, Geneva, Great) use the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. What did those great biblical scholars of old know that modern version defenders do not know? They knew that the English term "easter" was one legitimate way to translate the Hebrew word pesach. Prior to Tyndale’s English translation, translators commonly transliterated the Hebrew word instead of translating it. In fact, the Greek word pascha is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew. The Latin Bibles transliterated this word as pask or paske. This is how John Wycliffe rendered the word in his translation of 1380. Tyndale was the first to attempt to translate the word, and he incorporated five different English terms for the purpose: passover, easter, esterlambe, esterfest, and paschall lambe, using the words interchangeably. He used passover in the Old Testament Pentateuch and the other terms in the New Testament. Martin Luther, in his German translation, also used the terms Ostern, Osterlamm, and Osterfes, which mean easter, easter lamb, and easter fest. Succeeding English translators who revised the Tyndale version gradually reduced the usage of "Easter" and replaced it with "passover." The 15 references to "Easter" in the Great Bible were reduced to one in the King James Bible of 1611, and that is the one in Acts 12:4.

Why, we might ask, did they leave the term Easter in that one passage? We will let Dr. Waite answer: "This passover was apparently a travesty on what should have been done at that season and the pagan feast ISHTAR, which is a very pagan feast, was a proper picture for what they were doing. Now, I take issue that Easter is something new. ISHTAR was a pagan festival which went way back in the Old Testament times to the Phoenician and various pagan cultures. Ashteroth is the origin of the term Easter--a feminine Baal. . . . That is one translation some have asked about, and I would say certainly that ‘passover’ would not be a wrong rendering; yet since they were carrying on as they were, ‘Easter’ would be a good rendering also because it was at the same time. As you know, our pagan feast of Easter and our festival of Easter, with the egg-rolling and other things, is extremely pagan" (D.W. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p. 247).

Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, Cranmer, and the King James translators were not trying to produce a dynamic equivalency rendering of Acts 12:4; they were seeking to be completely faithful to the meaning of the Greek text. Regardless of what one thinks of the rendering of Easter in Acts 12:4 in the KJV, it is not a justification for the extreme and frightful looseness with which the modern dynamic equivalency translators treat the Scriptures.

With dynamic equivalency the translator becomes the interpreter of the Bible for the reader, instead of giving the reader a faithful translation of the original text. Those who use dynamic equivalency translations cannot know for sure what the Greek and Hebrew text says, because the translators take great liberties with it. On the other hand, no one can honestly charge the translators of the King James Bible with not seeking to produce a faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew text. They were so concerned not to add to or take away from Hebrew and Greek text that they used italics to indicate to their readers that they were adding words which they deemed necessary to give the proper meaning in English. They further retained the usage of "thou" and "ye" to make a distinction between the plural and singular in the pronouns. "Thou, thine," etc. are always singular, whereas "you, ye," etc. are always plural. All of this witnesses to the extreme caution and faithfulness with which the KJV translators treated the Greek and Hebrew text. This cannot be said for the New International Version or most other modern English versions. The NIV, for example, contains more than 6,600 examples of dynamic equivalency! That is the actual count made by Dr. Donald Waite, a fundamental Baptist scholar who has a Th.D. in Biblical Exposition from Dallas Seminary, 118 semester hours (1,888 class hours) of training in the biblical and other foreign languages, plus countless hours of teaching and personal research in the use of these languages. I repeat, the author of this letter demonstrates his lack of understanding of what dynamic equivalency is and how it is used in current Bible translation work. To attempt to justify the flippant attitude of modern dynamic equivalency translators by pointing to alleged dynamic equivalencies in the KJV is to "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).

For a more complete study on dynamic equivalency, see the 329-page book Myths about Modern Bible Versions (Way of Life Literature, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277. 360-675-8311). See also the Bible Version section of the End Times Apostasy Database at the Way of Life Literature web site -- http://www.wayoflife.org.

SECOND, THE AUTHOR OF THIS LETTER IS WRONG WHEN HE CLAIMS THAT THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE IS A LITERAL TRANSLATION THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY. Dr. Donald Waite has carefully analyzed the NKJV by comparing it word by word with the King James Bible and with the Hebrew and Greek texts. He found that the NKJV contains more than 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalency. His report is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. Consider one example of the dynamic equivalency found in the New King James Version.

KJV -- "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham" (Hebrews 2:16).

NKJV -- "For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham" (Hebrews 2:16).

This is not the matter of the translation of different Greek texts. The New King James Bible professes to follow the exact same Greek text as that of the King James Bible. The radical difference in the translation of this verse is achieved by the use of two different translation methodologies.

THIRD, THE AUTHOR OF THIS LETTER MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RECEIVE GREEK TEXT AND THE MODERN CRITICAL GREEK TEXT. He claims, for example, that both the New American Standard Version and the New King James Version "reflect the translators’ goal of being faithful to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek." He says the NIV "is still the Word of God, just as the KJV is." He completely ignores the fact that the Greek text used by the NASV and NIV translators and the Greek text used by the NKJV translators are different. There are roughly 2,800 words omitted in the critical Greek text as compared with the Received Text. This is a very large amount of Scripture. In fact, there are 45 complete verses omitted or seriously questioned in the critical Greek text underlying the NASV. Many doctrines, including Christ’s Godhead, virgin birth, ascension, and atonement, are weakened by the omissions and changes. We have demonstrated this in our book Myths about Modern Bible Versions.

This error to acknowledge the distinction between the Greek texts is typical of those who defend the modern versions. They often dodge the issue of the underlying text, but this is a foundational issue. Why is it that the modern versions present such a unified testimony of omitting and questioning the same verses (such as Acts 8:37) and presenting the same doctrinal changes (such as omitting the word "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16) as compared with the King James Bible? The reason is that the modern versions are based on a different Greek text than the King James Bible. Even if they used the right translation methodology, they cannot be any better than the text upon which they are founded.

FOURTH, THE AUTHOR OF THIS LETTER IS DOING THE DEVIL’S WORK IN TRYING TO GET PASTORS TO IGNORE THE BIBLE VERSION ISSUE. The Lord Jesus Christ exalted the details of the Scriptures. He said that man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD OF GOD (Matt. 4:4). He said not even one jot or tittle of the Old Testament will not pass away (Matt. 5:18). He said His WORDS (plural) will not pass away (Matt. 24:35). To claim that God does not want His people to be concerned about the details of the Bible version issue is nonsense. It is obvious that a Bible that omits or questions 45 verses that another Bible contains cannot be the same Bible. They both cannot be the inspired, preserved Word of God. A choice must be made. Pastors, especially, must look into this issue carefully and determine before the Lord where the preserved Scriptures are today and train their people in the truth. The Bible is foundational to everything else in the Christian life and ministry.

I, for one, am thankful for those pastors who are willing to make the effort to look diligently into the Bible text and version issue in order to lead their people in the right way. Those who treat this matter so cavalierly puzzle me.