DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

[Distributed by Way of Life Literatureâs Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright by David W. Cloud. 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.]

June 6, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - We mentioned in a recent article that the New International Version is an unfaithful dynamic equivalency translation of a corrupt text. The following examples of the use of dynamic equivalency by the NIV translators is from Comparing Translations, by Ronald J. Gordon, first published April, 1997, updated May, 1997. This article can be viewed at the following web site http://www.tgx.com/cob/compare.htm --

Formal Equivalence is a discipline which attempts to render the exact words from one language to another. This formal rendering is still the rule during most international conferences. But translation theorist Eugene Nida suggested that a Biblical translation should have the same dynamic impact on the modern reader as the original conveyed to the first audience. Dynamic Equivalence is now a discipline which uses receptor words that most effectively produce the original dynamics to the modern reader. Unfortunately, this is often difficult because historical and cultural differences need explaining. Another innovation is called paraphrasing where different words are used to convey thoughts. This is always dangerous, for when near original words are not used, honest translators may convey impressions that were never intended. Most paraphrases of the Bible are interpretative by nature, and this should be understood by the reader. This freedom often removes the guard rails of caution, and not a few passages have leaped from the roadbed of propriety into the fields of recklessness. One serious difficulty in making a fair and balanced comparison of various translations is the intent of the sponsoring committee. Unless we appreciate the framework of the committee, we accomplish little more than comparing apples with oranges. Introductions or editorial remarks are frequently helpful in understanding the underlying process of the translation committee, although many times we still need to read between the lines. The following excerpt from the Introduction to the New International Version admits to a moderate degree of textual, style, and grammatical remanufacturing:

"...because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the New Testament demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words."

Here are some examples of how the NIV has frequently modified the text. Numerous, protracted, almost redundant, phrases have been eliminated or shortened because modern sentence length tends to be shorter than biblical writers. The frequently occurring ["and answering he said unto them"] has now become, "Jesus answered..." in Mark 11:22, "He replied..." in Luke 9:13, or "He answered..." in Matthew 13:37. Gospel writers liberally use conjunctions and literal translations (KJV, NASV) begin most verses with "..and, but, even, for.." whereas the NIV ignores most. Likewise, biblical writers frequently use the word IDOU (behold or look here) to capture the readers mind, and the NIV ignores nearly all. They also frequently change questions into the most logical answer. For example, in John 16:31, when other (modern) translations render Jesus' words in the form of a question: "Do you now believe?" the NIV leaps to the answer by stating: "You believe at last!" Additionally, they often interject questionable concepts such as the routine exchange of capstone for cornerstone. But this may have introduced a problem, since the writers had a foundation stone in mind (Isaiah 28:16, Jeremiah 51:26, Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 3:10-12, 1 Timothy 6:19). Actually these were stone pads in building foundations, directly underneath each corner. Walls of field stone were the most unstable at corners, and these pads helped to insure the building's integrity. Here is the analogy. These pads held the weight, interlocked the walls, and provided stability for the entire building and precisely describe Christ's relationship to the church; for He undergirds the church, interlocks the members, and provides stability for their faith. However, a capstone is a crown block which rests on the top of a wall. It undergirds nothing, interlocks nothing, and could be removed without affecting the integrity of the building whatsoever. This writer has seen cornerstones of the Jerusalem temple at its foundation which are 17-19 feet long, 7-8 feet thick, and weigh 85-90 tons. This textual alteration may be of little consequence to novice readers or those who delight in innovation, but it does sadly push the envelope for serious Bible research, because the very analogy of the writer has been ruined. Textual modifications in the NIV have frequently become commentary, and may be difficult for readers to determine what is paraphrase, equivalent, or literal. In Hebrews 11:11. "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age -- and Sarah herself was barren -- was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise." These several examples do not mean that the NIV is a bad translation or that the committee was not seriously endeavoring to further Biblical understanding. However, the danger for any translator is that once you cross that line between literal and interpretation, there remains no inherent guard rail to restrain one from making the text reflect disposition, presumption, or imagination.
___________________________________________________

Concluding Note from the Editor of O Timothy Magazine, David W. Cloud: We appreciate these examples of dynamic equivalency in the NIV, but we do not agree with the above author in his conclusion regarding the NIV. We believe these examples DO mean that the NIV is a bad translation. Man does not have the authority to change God's Word this way. (The NIV is also a bad translation because it is based upon a corrupted text.)