The Queen James Version. Yes I'm serious

Status
Not open for further replies.

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
It used to be so easy - people were Christians or not and non-Christians didn't try to 'pretend' to be one, because they openly mocked the faith. The further we stray from orthodoxy, the further we open the door to this nonsense; we already have the Joel Osteens of the world as supposed messengers of Christ; this is only the next iteration of 'the wide road'.
 

Tyrese

Puritan Board Sophomore
Crazy. I guess this is their attempt to convince God that He is also possibly wrong about the matter.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Hmmm...this seems to misunderstand "dynamic equivalence" which is not so much a translational philosophy per se as a point on a spectrum of "identity of thing signified" to "identity of signifier". To give an example, in Job 19:27, Job talks about his "kidneys" being consumed. The KJV translates here in a literal word for word fashion, albeit using archaic English that would confuse many modern readers "though my reins be consumed". All other translations, including the NKJV and the NASV translate the Hebrew word for "kidneys" as "heart" using the principle of dynamic equivalence: since modern Western readers feel with their hearts not their other internal organs, the translators felt that the point of the text would be obscured by a word for word translation here. I daresay I could find examples where the KJV does this as well.

So all good translators will at times adopt dynamic equivalence in order to convey the message of the text accurately. The only question is how often and in what contexts that needs to be done. The NIV adopted the practice more often, which makes it a less academically demanding version to read (it usually comes out at about a 7th grade reading level); other translations, such as the ESV and HCSV (rightly in my view), are further towards the more literal scale (and as a result often score at about a 9th grade reading level). The NASV is much more word for word and as a result, reading it one is inclined to say "No man ever spoke like this". That makes it very useful for people who read some Greek and Hebrew. But if a little leaven leavens the whole lump, you'll have to throw away all Bible translations, including the KJV. And the issue with the QJV (which turns my stomach even to type) is not that they are arguing that best practices in Hebrew and Greek and trends in modern English usage require a different translation of a particular verse but that the Bible needs to be changed to suit a particular agenda. That is something wholly different from any of the major translations, even the RSV.

It's a matter of the nature of "dynamic equivalence" used in the NIV. Which is quite different in nature from the form of dynamic equivalence used in the formal equivalence translations such as the AV & the Geneva. Dynamic equivalence in the NIV was used to insert the translators' personal opinions. The RSV, though they may have attempted to keep it literal, suffers the same flaw. Namely, that personal interpretations were inserted into the text of scripture. 19th century Baptist attempts at having a "Baptist" translation were just as flawed as the NIV, RSV, & QJB for this reason. You state, "the issue with the QJV" is "that the Bible needs to be changed to suit a particular agenda." But substituting personal interpretations [NIV(1984&2011), RSV] for translation IS changing the Bible to suit a particular agenda. If it is abominable for the producers of the QJB to insert their own interpretations into the text of scripture, then it must be equally abominable for the NIV (1984 & 2011), the RSV, and all the other modern versions that do so, to do the same. Otherwise, it is hypocritical to denounce the QJB while affirming the NIV, RSV, et al. Personally I find it more abominable that the NIV (1984 & 2011) & the RSV have destroyed the full doctrine of propitiation by substituting personal opinions for translation. It is more insidious than the blatant attack by the producers of the QJB.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
If "inserting the interpreter's private opinion" is what you mean, it has nothing to do with dynamic equivalence as that term is normally used. Can you demonstrate that this actually happened with the NIV - that is, the translators were aware that the translation they offered was an inferior translation linguistically, but were determined to make the Bible say something different? That seems a pretty serious charge, and rather stronger than "I think they didn't do a particularly good job of translating X verse" which I suspect most Biblical scholars would believe about every single Bible translation there is (which is why learning the original languages is so important). As a reasonably competent Hebrew scholar, I recognize the complexity of some of the issues (for example in Isaiah 7:14, where there really is no English word exactly equivalent to 'almah. Unlike a commentary, where you can take a couple of pages to explain your view, in a translation you sometimes have to make a choice between not entirely satisfactory alternatives. But this has absolutely nothing to do with "dynamic equivalence" vs "formal equivalence" as a translation strategy.
 

NB3K

Puritan Board Sophomore
It's sad! Instead of crying for mercy to God, by the grace in Jesus Christ, because of their sin, these homosexuals will have no avenue to repentance if they do not know that their lifestyle is sinful before the Holy God of creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top