Dynamic equivalency is a new concept of Bible translation that was developed over the past four decades and that has dramatically affected the kind of Bibles being produced throughout the world

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY: DEATH KNELL OF PURE SCRIPTURE
By David W. Cloud

Part 2 of 2

Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org

THE GURU OF DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY: EUGENE NIDA

" ... and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter" Ezekiel 13:10.

The man who has built the wall of dynamic equivalency is Eugene Nida (1914- ). Originally with Wycliffe Bible Translators, Nida has been associated with the American Bible Society and the United Bible Societies since 1943. "In addition to administrative responsibilities, his work involved field surveys, research, training programs, checking manuscripts of new translations, and the writing of numerous books and articles on linguistics, anthropology and the science of meaning. This work has taken him to more than 85 countries, where he has conferred with scores of translators on linguistic problems involving more than 200 different languages. Dr. Nida was also Translation Research Coordinator for the United Bible Societies from 1970 to 1980" (Record, American Bible Society, March 1986, p. 17). Though retired, Nida retains his relationship with the ABS and UBS as a Special Consultant for Translations, and is active in research, writing, and lecturing.

Nida has exercised wide influence among Bible translators. Great numbers of translators around the world are now busy daubing this wall with untempered mortar. Robert Bratcher, translator of the Today’s English Version and Translations Consultant with the United Bible Societies; Kenneth Taylor, author of the Living Bible; and John Beekman of Wycliffe Translators are only three of those who are daubing the dynamic equivalency wall.

As to his view of biblical inspiration, Nida says, "...God’s revelation involved limitations. ... Biblical revelation is not absolute and all divine revelation is essentially incarnational. ... Even if a truth is given only in words, it has no real validity until it has been translated into life. ... The words are in a sense nothing in and of themselves. ... the word is void unless related to experience" (Nida, Message and Mission, New York: Harper & Row, 1960, pp. 222-228).

The Psalmist did not hold to Nida‘s theories about the words of Scripture. He said, "The words of the Lord are pure words..." (Psalm 12:6). Throughout Scripture, it is the very words of the Bible that are said to be important, not just the basic meaning. The words of the Bible ARE something in and of themselves, regardless of whether they are related to anything else. Nida is wrong. The words of the Bible are intrinsically the eternal words of God. Nida’s chief problem is his rejection of the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration.

"Nida states emphatically that the biblical revelation is not ‘absolute’ and applies Paul’s statement that ‘now we see through a glass, darkly’ (1 Cor. 13:12) to the biblical revelation itself, which as the really incarnate Word can offer no absolute truth. Because it is a medium of communication within a limited cultural context, human language is unsuited as a vehicle for supernatural, eternal truths that would, in fact, need a language that is unhuman or divine" (Nida, Message and Mission, pp. 224-228, cited by Van Bruggen, p. 76).

"In a time when the Bible was thought to be written in a kind of Holy Ghost language, the only criterion to exegetical accuracy was the pious hope that one’s interpretations were in accord with accepted doctrine. At a later period, when grammar was viewed almost exclusively from an historical perspective, one could only hope to arrive at valid conclusions by ‘historical reconstructs,’ but these often proved highly impressionistic. At present, linguistics has provided much more exact tools of analysis based on the dynamic functioning of language, and it is to these that one ought to look for significant developments in the future" (Eugene Nida, Language Structure and Translation, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1975, p. 259).

Nida is dead wrong in his views that the Bible is not absolute, is not eternal truth, and that it is written in imperfect language. Though written by imperfect men, the Bible is written in words chosen by God and settled forever in heaven. The Bible IS written in a language that is divine; it IS Holy Ghost language. The Bible’s words are God’s words and they have eternal validity whether or not they are "translated into life," whether or not they are understood by man!

Nida says the accounts of angels and miracles are not necessarily to be interpreted literally.

".. wrestling with an angel all have different meanings than in our own culture" (Nida, Message and Mission, p. 41).

The Bible’s accounts of angels do not have different meanings for different cultures. They are infallibly recorded accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ believed in literal angels and interpreted the Old Testament miracles literally, and He is certainly a more faithful guide than Dr. Nida.

As to the atonement of Jesus Christ, Nida says, "Most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, interpret the references to the redemption of the believer by Jesus Christ, not as evidence of any commercial transaction by any quid pro quo between Christ and God or between the ‘two natures of God’ (his love and his justice), but as a figure of the ‘cost,’ in terms of suffering" (Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, Theory and Practice, 1969, p. 53). In A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Nida (with co-author Barclay Newman) says, "...‘blood’ is used in this passage [Romans 3:25] in the same way that it is used in a number of other places in the New Testament, that is, to indicate a violent death. ... Although this noun [propitiation] (and its related forms) is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation (that is, an act to appease or placate a god), it is never used this way in the Old Testament."

Nida is wrong. The sacrifice of Christ was not just a figure; it WAS a placation of God, of His holiness and of the righteous demands in His law. Christ’s sacrifice WAS a commercial transaction between Christ and God, and was NOT merely a figure of the cost in terms of suffering. The sacrifice of Calvary was a true sacrifice, and that sacrifice required the offering of blood—not just a violent death as Nida says. Blood is blood and death is death, and we believe that God is wise enough to know which of these words should be used. Romans 5:8-10 teaches us that salvation required BOTH the blood and death of Christ. Had Christ died, for example, by strangulation, though it would have been a violent death, it would not have atoned for sin because blood is required. Those, like Nida, who tamper with or reinterpret the blood atonement often claim to believe in the cross of Christ and in justification by grace, but they are rendering the Cross ineffective by reinterpreting its meaning. There is no grace without a true propitiation. This word means "satisfaction" and refers to the fact that the sin debt was satisfied by the blood atonement of Christ. The great difference between the heathen concept of propitiating God and that of the Bible is this—the God of the Bible paid the propitiation Himself through His own Sacrifice, whereas the heathen thinks that he can propitiate God through his own human labors and offerings. The fact remains, though, that God did have to be propitiated through the bloody death of His own sinless Son.

Nida is a clever man. He does not openly assault the blood atonement and the doctrine of inspiration as his translator friend Robert Bratcher does. (Bratcher, translator of the Today’s English Version, has co-authored books with Nida.) Nida uses the same words as the Bible believer, but he reinterprets key words and passages such as those above. This is called Neo-orthodoxy. Beware.

Nida says Bible language was not given of God but was determined by the writers of the Bible.

"Nida and Taber state that Paul, if he had been writing for us rather than for his original audience, would not only have written in a different language-form, but also would have said the same things differently" (Jakob Van Bruggen, citing Nida and Charles Taber, Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 23, n. 3).

Nida does not believe the Bible’s own confession about its nature. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Since the Bible writers did not choose their words, it is heretical to say they would write in a different language form if they were writing today. Paul’s words did not arise from his own will and context but were Revelations from Heaven and were written in words chosen by God. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12). See also 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, where Paul states that the very words of New Testament Revelation are of God.

Nida says there are no absolutes in Christianity except God.

"The only absolute in Christianity is the triune God. Anything which involves man, who is finite and limited, must of necessity be limited, and hence relative. Biblical culture relativism is an obligatory feature of our incarnational religion, for without it we would either absolutize human institutions or relativize God" (Eugene Nida, Customs and Cultures, New York: Harper & Row, 1954, p. 282, footnote 22).

Nida puts everything which man has touched in the category of imperfection, even the Bible and the institutions of described in Scripture, such as the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the church. Nida is wrong. The Bible, though written by fallible man, is infallible Revelation.

Nida says Bible translation is to be tested by the response of non-christians and by youth.

"Nida and Taber describe the difference between an earlier concept of translating and their own concept as a shift of the focus from the ‘form of the message’ to the ‘response of the receptor’; therefore the translator must now determine in particular the response of the receptor to the translated message (p. 1). Here it is not a matter of an abstraction, such as ‘The English-speaking person,’ but it is a matter of real individuals that appears when Nida and Taber desire that translations be attuned to non-Christians and to youth (pp. 31-32), and be tested by the potential users (p. 163)" (Van Bruggen, citing Nida and Taber, Theory and Practice of Translation).

Nida has things backwards. How could unsaved people and young people determine if a Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture? They don’t have the ability, spiritually or educationally, to make such a determination. The Bible plainly says the unsaved cannot understand God’s Word (1 Cor. 2:12-14). It is the translator’s job to make an accurate Bible translation. It is then the job of evangelists and teachers to help people understand the Bible.

Nida’s erroneous view of the Bible is his foundational heresy, and this heresy alone is justification for God’s people to mark and avoid him (Romans 16:17). It is very strange to see people who profess to accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God following the teachings of men who deny this precious doctrine.

ERRORS OF DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY

Following are some of the major errors of the dynamic equivalency method of Bible translation:

Dynamic Equivalency Denies the Nature of the Bible

The Bible cannot be treated like other books. By nature, it is completely different.

First, the Bible is divine Revelation. See Gal. 1:11-12; 2 Pet. 1:21. Consider the testimony of Moses (Num. 16:28), David (2 Sam. 23:2), Nehemiah (Neh. 9:30), and the Prophets (Jer. 1:9; 30:2; 36:2; Ezek. 1:3; Acts 3:21). God delivered the Bible message as Revelation from Heaven and it must be treated as such. It’s God’s’ Book, not man’s. Even the very culture in which the Bible was given was chosen of God and is not to be changed.

Second, the Bible is verbally inspired. See 1 Cor. 2:12-13; Matt. 5:18; Acts 1:16. The writers of the Bible were not simply given general ideas and then left to their own resources in phrasing them. The words and the form by which the message was communicated were settled in heaven from all eternity, purified seven times. Though no one would deny that in translating the Bible there must be some freedom to change the form of the original in order to properly communicate the message of the original, such freedom does not encompass the liberties taken in dynamic equivalency translations.

Third, the Bible contains the deep things of God. See 1 Cor. 2:10. Bible language is sufficient to communicate eternal and divine Truth. "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Bible language cannot be compared with any uninspired writings of man.

Some who use dynamic equivalency in Bible translation claim to believe the Scriptures are the verbally inspired, infallible Word of God. Lynn Silvernale, the ABWE missionary mentioned earlier, is one example. I find this very strange. The theory of dynamic equivalency was built by men who do not hold a high view of Scripture. When one considers the holy nature of Scripture, it becomes impossible to make the kind of changes that dynamic equivalency calls for. While it might be acceptable to change the writings of a mere man, it is not acceptable to change the writings of Almighty God.

Dynamic Equivalency Confuses Spiritual Enlightenment with
Natural Understanding

Dynamic Equivalency fails to recognize the root problem of man’s inability to understand the Word of God, which is spiritual blindness, not cultural ignorance or lack of literary education.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come" (John 16:12,13).

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45).

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul" (Acts 16:14).

"Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Prov. 1:23).

Consider Acts 13:44-48. Here the Jews, in whose cultural setting the Bible was 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 Ignores God’s Warnings about Adding to or Taking Away from God’s Word

Consider the following Scriptures:

"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).

"… all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word" (Jer. 26:2).

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2).

Those who follow dynamic equivalency acknowledge these warnings and often have clever ways of explaining how they do not disobey them. In the end, though, it is clear that the warnings are simply ignored.

Dynamic Equivalency Substitutes Man’s Thoughts for God’s Words

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. We have already given many examples of this. We will repeat some of those and include a few others:

Rom. 3:25--"blood" (KJV) = "death" (TEV).

Rev. 5:5--"Root of David" (KJV) = "great descendant of David" (TEV).

Isaiah 1:18--"Snow" (KJV) = "Coconut" (United Bible Societies translation).

John 14:6--"I am the way, the truth and the life" (KJV) = "I am the way by which people come to know God and so obtain real life" (Indonesian Common Language Bible).

The following are examples are from Bible Translations for Popular Use by William L. Wonderly. We quoted earlier from this United Bible Societies’ publication:

Phil. 2:6--"Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (KJV) = "Although he had a divine form, he did not value being like God" (Today’s Dutch Version).

James 1:17--"the Father of lights" (KJV) = "God, the Creator of the heavenly lights" (TEV).

1 Pet. 2:10--"now have obtained mercy" (KJV) = "God has compassion on you" (Spanish CL)

Eph. 1:17--"the Father of glory" (KJV) = "the glorious Father" (TEV).

Gal. 2:9--"perceived the grace that was given unto me" (KJV) = "recognized that God had given me this special task" (TEV).

The following examples were given to us by Ross Hodsdon of Bibles International, formerly with Wycliffe Bible Translators:

"Lamb" = "seal pup" (Wycliffe translation in Eskimo).

"Son of man" = "older brother" (Wycliffe translation, Makusi language, Brazil).

"Fig tree" = "banana tree" (Wycliffe translation).

From these few examples, you see how far-removed the "dynamic equivalency" rendering is from the original text. Dynamic equivalency allows translators this strange liberty to change, delete from, and add to the Word of God. This type of thing is wrong. It is also important to emphasize that we are not arguing for an interlinear, wooden literalness, but for an unwavering commitment to the actual wording and precise meaning of the Bible text.

Dynamic Equivalency Robs Men of God’s Words

Consider the following Scriptures:

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4).

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Galatians 3:16).

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34,35).

These and many other passages show the importance of each word of the Bible. Yet the liberties taken with dynamic equivalency leave the readers of the Common Language versions without access to the very words of God. They have the general thoughts of the original in many passages, but the very words have been stolen from them! The reader of the Common Language versions cannot meditate over each word and detail of Scripture because he does not have a verbal translation.

This becomes even more frightful when we understand that dynamic equivalency is not just a technique used to produce evangelistic Scripture portions. Dynamic equivalency is rapidly replacing the literal or formal equivalency method of translation, and new dynamic equivalency versions produced by the United Bible Societies, Wycliffe, and others often are intended to REPLACE the old literal versions.

Those who use dynamic equivalency doubtless think they are helping people by bringing the Word of God down to their level. Actually, they are thieves who are robbing people of the very words of God.

Dynamic Equivalency Ignores the Fact That Much of the Bible’s Language Is Not of Any Earthly Culture, but Is Heavenly in Idiom and Language

Much of the Bible has always been strange to man because it is a heavenly Book; it is a Revelation from God. The Old Testament contains "patterns of things in heaven" (Heb. 9:23) and were strange even to the people who were living at the time those patterns were revealed. The details relating to the Law, the priesthood, and the tabernacle and its service were not adapted from Israel’s culture; Israel’s culture was created by that heavenly revelation!

The same is true for the things of the Church. These were given as revelations from heaven through the Apostles, and the Gentile and Jewish converts became conformed to these revelations. Church truths are "mysteries," meaning heavenly revelations never before revealed to man (Eph. 3:1-5,9-10). The people of the first century knew no more about New Testament salvation, propitiation, justification, sanctification, or any other church term and service than people of the world do today. They had to learn the meaning of these foreign, heavenly things after they were saved, just as men do now.

The Bible is foreign to all earthly cultures because earthly cultures were formed by rebellious men who have turned from the truth and from the living God. Truth has been lost from man’s cultures and only exists in the form of unperceived shadows remaining in the dark mists of manmade religions and traditions. It is not a strange thing that much of the Bible is obscure to the people of this world, for "our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:20). And again, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). Again, Jesus said of born again Christians, "...they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17:14,16).

Dynamic equivalency ignores the fact that much of the Bible’s language has always been difficult, even obscure. This is stated plainly by Peter. In 2 Peter 3:16 he refers to "things hard to be understood" in the epistles of Scripture written by the Apostle Paul. In 1 Peter 1:10 we find that even the prophets who penned the Old Testament Scriptures did not understand all that they wrote. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 13:10-13 that He spoke parables to hide truth from those who refused to believe. Christ purposely designed the parables to be obscure to some of his hearers!

The Bible has great variety of style and doctrine. Some of it is simple enough for children to understand, but some of it is difficult even for the most educated adult. Some of it is simple enough for the unsaved to grasp; some of it is difficult even for the mature saint. First and second year Greek students learn that there is a variety of language style in the New Testament. Many first year Greek students can accurately translate portions of the Gospel of John, while Paul’s epistles remain obscure because of the greater difficulty in language style and content.

In translating the Bible, man is not free to simplify that which God has not simplified! It is the teacher’s job to explain and simplify the Scriptures. The translator who produces a version of the Bible in which the Pauline epistles is as easy to read as the Gospel of John has corrupted God’s Word. I know that such an idea sounds like heresy to a follower of dynamic equivalency. Many ask, "Isn’t it always good to make the Bible simple enough for people to understand?" I say no, not if in so doing we have changed God’s Holy Word. The Bible is God’s Book. Does any man know better than God what men need to hear? Further, the Bible is not only about meeting man’s need; it is about God’s glory.

Contrast the thinking among Bible translators today with that of faithful William Tyndale of old: "I call God to record against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus, to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God’s Word against my conscience, nor would [I so alter it] this day, if all that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honour, or riches, might be given me."

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 chief concern of the Bible translator.

It is the evangelist’s work to take the accurately translated Bible and explain its message to the unsaved, and it is the teacher’s job is to explain that message to the saved. See Ephesians 4:11-12. The Bible translator whose overriding goal is to make the Bible clear to the unsaved so that they need no evangelist of necessity becomes a Bible corrupter and a robber of God’s words from the people.

Dynamic Equivalency Makes the Bible Conform to Man’s Culture Rather Than Making Man’s Culture Conform to the Bible

We have seen that dynamic equivalency adapts the Scriptures to man’s culture. Several real life examples were given: fig tree becomes banana tree; dove becomes gigi bird; foxes becomes coyotes; snow becomes coconut; candlestick becomes a grain bin; plough becomes a hoe; storehouse becomes a basket; sword becomes dissension; son of man becomes older brother. The list could be endless.

There are two very serious problems with this. First, this type of thing changes God’s Word. Those doing this believe the changes are justified to enable people to understand the Bible. In effect, though, they are changing God’s Word and are robbing people of God’s words. I don’t believe ANY of the changes we have seen are justified. Man simply does not have such authority.

Second, this type of thing destroys the authority of God’s Word. The mind of the translator becomes the authority. Who is to say if a gigi bird is a proper substitute for the dove? Who is to say that a hoe is a proper substitute for a plough, or a banana tree for the fig tree? Who is wise enough to rewrite the Bible? How can we know that such changes do not somehow corrupt some important meaning of the Word of God?

Those involved in this kind of thing do not even agree among themselves about how far to go in making changes. If dove can mean some other kind of bird, who is to say what kind of bird is a proper substitute? Eugene Nida, for example, often allows more drastic changes than Beekman. Beekman allows more drastic changes than some of the other translators involved in this. It has become a world of confusion and uncertainty. Why? Because man has become the arbitrator of what is the Word of God.

Instead of being content with what God has written and seeking to translate the words of the Bible as exactly and literally as possible, as faithful Bible translators have historically done, the gurus of dynamic equivalency have launched out upon the uncertain sea of contextualization. Their rules are manmade and therefore relative. Having loosed themselves from the exactness of the original text of Scripture, they have no objective, dogmatic criteria upon which to base their translation decisions.

Dynamic Equivalency Confuses Inspiration with Translation

Dynamic equivalency proponents misapply facts about inspiration to the work of Bible translation. They say that God wrote to be understood and adapted His Word to a particular culture; thus, when translators adapt the Scriptures to today’s cultures, they supposedly are merely following God’s example. Beekman and Callow develop this thinking in Translating the Word of God:

Naturalness is a prerequisite to ease of understanding. … They preached to be understood and they wrote to be understood. At least two of the New Testament writers explicitly say so. In 2 Corinthians 1:13, Paul says, "For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand" (RSV). ... Luke also says in the preface to his gospel that "it seemed good to me also ... to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed" (Luke 1:3,4 RSV). To assume that the original readers had considerable difficulty understanding what was written is, in effect, to assert that the apostles were clumsy and inept in their God-given task of communicating the truth in their preaching and writing. Paul, Peter, John, James, Luke, and the others wrote clearly and were readily understood. The original writings were both natural in structure and meaningful in content. When we say that the Scriptures are natural in form, we are simply saying that, written as they were by native speakers, they fell within the bounds of natural Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek. The use of words and their combinations; the syntax; the morphology--all was natural. This characteristic of the original should also be found in a translation (Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, p. 40).

Beekman and Callow develop this line of thinking by giving illustrations of ways Scripture can be changed to conform to modern cultures. This thinking is faulty. The Bible translator’s job is to translate that which God has written. His job is not merely to interpret the original concepts of Scripture, then rephrase those concepts in a general sense in another language. His job is not to change the images of the Bible to adapt them to a modern culture.

The Bible, if translated properly, will NOT sound "natural" to a modern reader. God did not write a Book that sounds natural to modern man. If translated properly, much of the Bible will not be easy to understand. The Bible is difficult to understand. Its culture is foreign; its teachings are absolute, eternal, heavenly, and foreign to fallen man. Clear understanding of the Scriptures only comes through faithful evangelists and teachers and through sound teaching tools.

Did God make a mistake? Of course not; God knew what He was doing when He designed the Bible as He did. Further, it is His Book, not ours; and our job is to faithfully, accurately translate it, then teach people the meaning of it.

Yet, dynamic equivalency proponents think they have the freedom to change the Word of God and adapt it to modern man. This is exactly what Beekman and Callow propose:

Naturally, the original writers drew on their own culture for the images they used; and for any given receptor culture, it is likely that some of these images will be unknown. Such images as ‘wineskins,’ ‘whitewashed sepulchres,’ ‘anchor,’ ‘shipwreck,’ ‘sword,’ and ‘crown’ are familiar in relatively few of the cultures for which new translations are currently being made. Hence, the meaning of the figure breaks down at its very center--the image itself, since the image conveys no meaning at all to the readers of the RL [receptor language]. ... When careful questioning of the RL readers reveals that a particular metaphor or simile is failing to communicate the meaning of the original, then the translator needs to find out what is causing the problem--the image, the topic, the point of similarity--and to correct the translation so that the problem is resolved. ... There are two principal modifications of the form which are permissible for the translator. One is adjustment of the actual literary form of the metaphor or simile. ... The other is making explicit some part of the implicit information which is carried by the figure (Beekman and Callow, pp. 137-138, 143-144).

Beekman and Callow propose changing the images and details of the Bible when people of a modern culture cannot understand what the Scriptures say. They give many illustrations of such changes that have been made in Wycliffe versions. The Zapotec translation of Mexico changed "the babe leaped in her womb" of Luke 1:41 to "the baby played" (p. 147). Some African translations have changed "your hearts are hard" in Matthew 19:8 to "your ears are hard" or "your stomach is hard" (p. 147).

Beekman and Callow suggest that "the tongue is a fire" of James 3:6 could be translated "a fire ruins things; what we say also ruins things" (p. 149).

We believe this is wrong. Bible translators do not have the authority to change the Word of God. If the Bible’s images cannot be understood by people, it is the job of the teacher to explain them, not the job of the translator to change them. Inspiration is not a pattern for translation.

Dynamic Equivalency Attempts the Impossible

In several ways, dynamic equivalency attempts the impossible. Let’s consider some of these:

First, dynamic equivalency attempts to retain the exact meaning of the original while allowing for great changes in adapting the Bible message to the language and culture of the receptor people. Consider the following statement by United Bible Societies translator Thomas Headland:

"The goal in Bible translation is to make a translation that will communicate to the target culture without their having to learn the Judeo-Greek culture, while at the same time being faithful to the uniqueness of the historical and theological setting of the Scriptures. No simple task!" (Thomas N. Headland, "Some Communication Problems in Translation," Notes on Translation, No. 88, April 1982, p. 28).

Headland says this is no simple task. He is wrong. It is an impossible task! God chose to reveal His Word within the framework, largely, of a Judeo-Greek culture, and if you change the Bible so that today’s readers can understand it without learning anything about its original culture, you have corrupted the Scripture.

At this point, we need to note that dynamic equivalency proponents inevitably claim their translations are faithful to the original text. They all say this. The Today’s English Version claims this:

"The Bible in Today’s English Version is a new translation WHICH SEEKS TO STATE CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY THE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL TEXTS in words and forms that are widely accepted by all people who use English as a means of communication" (Foreword, Holy Bible Today’s English Version with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, American Bible Society, 1978).

The Contemporary English Version claims to be faithful:

"Every attempt has been made to produce a text THAT IS FAITHFUL TO THE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL and that can be read with ease and understanding by readers of all ages" ("Translating the Contemporary English Version," Bible for Today’s Family New Testament, American Bible Society, 1991).

Ken Taylor, translator of the Living Bible, claims his version is faithful:

"We take the original thought and convert it into the language of today. IN THIS WAY WE CAN BE MUCH MORE ACCURATE THAN THE VERBAL TRANSLATION" (Evangelism Today, Dec. 1972).

All dynamic equivalency gurus claim this. In the United Bible Societies publication Bible Translations for Popular Use, William Wonderly claims dynamic equivalency versions are faithful to the original text:

"In the translations mentioned above [the TEV, Living Bible, Spanish Popular Version, French common version, and the Today’s Dutch Version, etc.] various techniques have been used to produce a version that is more meaningful for the readers for whom they are intended, STAYING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF FIDELITY TO THE ORIGINAL ON ONE HAND and the use of an acceptable style on the other" (p. 75).

Wycliffe Translator’s publication Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow also claims that the aim of dynamic equivalency is always faithfulness to the original text:

"The goal should be a translation that is so rich in vocabulary, so idiomatic in phrase, so correct in construction, so smooth in flow of thought, so clear in meaning, and so elegant in style, that it does not appear to be a translation at all, and yet, AT THE SAME TIME, FAITHFULLY TRANSMITS THE MESSAGE OF THE ORIGINAL" (p. 32).

It should be obvious that such claims mean almost nothing in practice! We have seen examples from each of these so-called faithful versions, showing that they are anything but faithful. Even the general meaning of the original is changed. I don’t care what a translator claims; it his translation is a perversion of God’s Word, I will not allow him to hide behind his claim that he is faithful to the Bible!

Let’s consider a second impossibility of dynamic equivalency. It says translators can know how hearers of the Bible centuries ago were impressed. One of the goals of dynamic equivalency is to reproduce the same reaction in modern hearers. This is called impact translating.

How utterly impossible! We cannot know how the Scriptures impressed men centuries ago. Further, there have always been different reactions to that same Word by the different hearers. A glimpse of this is seen in Acts 17 in Paul's sermon to the Athenians. All heard the same message from God; but some mocked, some put off a decision until a later date, and some believed (Acts 17:32-33).

The Bible translator’s job is not to attempt to create a certain reaction in the hearer of the Bible, but to concentrate upon making a faithful rendering of God’s Holy eternal words. When the translation is completed and the preaching begins, men will respond in the various ways they have always responded to God’s Word, some mocking, some ignoring and putting it off, some believing.

Dynamic Equivalency Is Based on Half-Truths

Like all heresies, dynamic equivalency is based on partial truths. The writings of dynamic equivalency proponents contain many things that are true, yet they go beyond the truth. Consider some of the half-truths of dynamic equivalency:

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. They then use these to justify their paraphrasing methodology. They create a straw man. 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).

Nida contends that literal translation is dangerous. As evidence, he provides examples of inaccurate translations. This is a strawman 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 or inculturalization. The phrase "heap coals of fire on one’s head" is not commonly understood in any culture today, even an English-speaking one, but it is exactly what the Bible says. The translator’s job is to translate this phrase accurately into the receptor language, then explain it to the people through dictionaries and commentaries.

Second, dynamic equivalency says the translator must interpret. This is true! An example is the Hebrew word "almah," which is translated "damsel" (Ps. 68:25), "maid" (Ex. 2:8), and "virgin" (Is. 7:14) by the King James translators. The Christ-honoring, Bible-believing translator will always translate "almah" as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 because he knows that the verse is a Messianic prophecy of Christ's virgin birth and when the Holy Spirit quoted this verse in Matt. 1:23, He used the Greek word for virgin. Translation does involve interpretation, but this does not mean the translator has the liberty to change the Bible in a dynamic equivalency manner.

Third, dynamic equivalency says the people for whom the translation is being made must be kept in mind. Again, this is true. Every translator must have the people in mind for whom he is translating, but it does not mean we can change fig tree to banana tree, or blood to death, or plough to hoe, or grace to kindness, or saints to people of God, or pastors to church officials!

Fourth, dynamic equivalency says some things implicit must be made explicit. This is true. For instance, sometimes words must be added in the translation to make a passage intelligible and/or to bring out words implicit in the original. An example is seen in the words that appear in italic in the King James Version. These are words that are not explicitly in the original Greek and Hebrew texts, but they are added by the translators to clarify the meaning in English. This is essential in Bible translation work and is something that has always been done; but this important translation principle is in great contrast with the dynamic equivalency perversion in the following example from Isaiah 53:1 in the Today’s English Version:

KJV--"Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"

TEV--"The people reply, ‘Who would have believed what we report? Who could have seen the Lord’s hand in this?’"

It is obvious that dynamic equivalency goes beyond any proper bounds of faithful translating. Upon what authority have the TEV translators added "the people reply" to this passage? Upon what authority have they changed the tenses of the verbs? Upon what authority have they changed "arm of the Lord" to "the Lord’s hand"? Translators who do this type of thing might claim only to be making explicit that which is implicit, but they are perverting the Word of God. None of these changes are implicit in this verse.

Consider another example. This time we will compare Ephesians 3:-2-4 in the KJV to the Contemporary English Version (CEV):

KJV--"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ."

CEV--"You have surely heard about God’s kindness in choosing me to help you. In fact, this letter tells you a little about how God has shown me his mysterious ways. As you read the letter, you will also find out how well I really do understand the mystery about Christ."

The liberties taken by dynamic equivalency translators go beyond any proper bounds of Bible translation. This is true for practically any example we could give from these versions. They simply aren’t faithful. Dynamic equivalency proponents won’t admit that, but it’s true. Dynamic equivalency (by any name) is a proud new methodology which men of God of old--the William Tyndales and the Adoniram Judsons--would have rejected in trembling and disgust.

Dynamic equivalency is especially dangerous because it is a subtle mixture of truth and error. Many of those who are following this method of translation have accepted the bitter cake of dynamic equivalency because of the sweetness of the truth intermingled therein. The principles can sound so reasonable, but the bottom line is that dynamic equivalency is a perversion of Scripture.

Dynamic Equivalency Is an Improper Answer to Very Real Problems

Promoters of dynamic equivalency draw examples from translation work among illiterate people and use these to justify their methodology. Consider an example:

"How do you talk about sheep to people who have never seen sheep and have no word for such an animal? What do you use for ‘wine’ in a language which has words only for ‘grape juice’ and ‘strong liquor’?"

"How to express theological terms and concepts like ‘righteousness,’ ‘justification,’ ‘propitiation,’ is another big challenge for most translators. In many tribal languages these concepts are foreign and there are no ready-made terms to express them. It has taken some translators months and years to find a suitable term in their language for such abstract ideas as ‘love’ and ‘holiness.’ To get an idea of what is involved, try expressing ‘propitiation’ in the shortest, clearest possible way for a translator to put into a language which doesn’t have such a term" (Silvernale, By the Word).

The problems so stated can make dynamic equivalency seem reasonable. These are problems Bible translators and missionaries have always faced, yet it is only in recent years that the proud concept of dynamic equivalency with its willingness to change the form of God’s Word to fit man’s culture has become popular.

Miss Lynn Silvernale adopts the dynamic equivalency solution, but she prefers terms such as "idiomatic" and "common language." It’s the same thing, though. In her booklet she focuses on the very real problems which attend the work of translating the Bible into the language of an illiterate people, and it is very easy to miss the serious error underlying the principles she presents. When we give close examination to dynamic equivalency it becomes obvious that the error so subtly mixed into the theories has resulted in the corruption of God’s Word.

Foreign cultures are not the only problems used to illustrate the supposed need for dynamic equivalency. United Bible Societies publications describe the problems involved in enabling people groups such as children and the homeless to understand the Scriptures.

It’s true that there are tremendous problems involved in translating the Bible for foreign cultures and for illiterate or marginally literate people; but it is never proper to change the Word of God. The proper solution is to translate the Bible accurately, then explain the translation with footnotes, dictionaries, commentaries, and other teaching tools.

What if a language is so shallow and strange that it is not possible to translate the Scriptures accurately and formally into that language? I say don’t translate the Bible into that language! I can hear the groans from those with a Wycliffe mindset. Answer me this, though: Who has given man the permission to change the Word of God? The Lord says, "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). Since this is what God says, I would say this is the last word on the subject! It is His book.

In light of God’s warning about tampering with His Word, I would suggest that the proper method would be the following: First, simple portions of Scripture can be translated and used for evangelism. As the number of converts grows within a language group, other portions can be translated and used to teach the new Christians about the things of God. Further, an accurate translation of the Scriptures in a local trade language can be used to train tribal leaders who in turn can teach their own people and further the process of spiritual growth. Through this means, over a period of time, the language of a group can be developed so that eventually it might be able to carry the entire Word of God.

The above is the method which has been used successfully through the centuries by faithful missionaries who would never have used dynamic equivalency. The Bible is to raise the culture of the people heavenward, not the other way around. Dynamic equivalency is a backward way of thinking.

The Bible does not say that the Scriptures must be translated into every language. It simply does not say that. It says the gospel is to be preached to every person. While the gospel can be translated into every tongue, this is not necessarily true for the whole Bible.

Many deprecate using a trade language to teach people the things of God. They say we must use the "heart language." They say a trade language can never reach the heart. I think that is wrong. Those who understand a language, although it might not be their mother tongue, can understand the truths of God’s Word from that language. While it is always nicer to hear things in one’s own mother tongue, I say it would be better to educate an entire people in a trade language so they can have the uncorrupted Word of God than to corrupt the Word of God through dynamic equivalency.

Dynamic Equivalency Was Created by a Heretic

We have already shown that dynamic equivalency was popularized by a heretic named Eugene Nida. It’s largest promoter is the apostate United Bible Societies. (See "Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Book: A Report on the United Bible Societies" at the "Bible Version" section of the End Times Apostasy Database at the Way of Life web site. http://www.wayoflife.org/.) God has given clear commands about our relationship with heresy: Titus 3:9-10; Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 2:16-21; 2 Tim. 3:5. Friends, God would not give us important truth through heretics! If you want to know how to translate the Bible properly, don’t go to the writings of men such as Eugene Nida and Robert Bratcher! God commands that His people mark and avoid the heresy of dynamic equivalency and those who are promoting it!

For lack of space, we cannot go further into the exact principles of dynamic equivalency. Our goal has been to inform God’s people of how popular this has become in the last few years, and to warn of its danger. We are dealing with something that has enormous and growing influence throughout the world, not only among Modernists and New Evangelicals, but even among some Fundamentalists.

Brethren, be warned and stand fast.

Dynamic Equivalency: Death Knell of Pure Scripture Part 1 of 2