Murdoch's NIV

[JerryNumbers]

I did not say they were corrupt I said they were not perfect. I also think that while KJV is a great translation it is not 100% perfect because it has been altered through translation(I might change my mind on this based on the other points you have made). therefore in my mind its imprefect text vs the more imperfect texts. therefore I can honestly say that the KJV is the best english translation but still not perfect and so to condemn the others due to their imperfections is to condemn the KJV aswell.



thanks I'll be sure to look these up

I also think that while KJV is a great translation it is not 100% perfect

So you don't think its 100% perfect?

Is it 99%, 92%, 89%, 75%, 65%, 50% perfect?

If its not perfect, them we do not have God 's true and perfect Word.

And whom among us is in the position of God to tell us which part you think is not perfect and which part is not perfect? Answer, no one!

[Kubel]

Will Kinney has an excellent article to show that God forbid IS actually an accepted (not DE) translation of the underlying Greek words.

God Forbid

Please show me where Will Kinney shows us that "God forbid" is not dynamic equivalence, I can't seem to find it (although I may have missed it somewhere). From what I see, he just shows that "God forbid" is acceptable as it carries the same basic meaning as "may it not be" to the English reader, and he shows that other translations do it too (both modern and pre-KJV). And I agree with him there- "God forbid" is acceptable.

But that is not the issue. The issue is: You said that dynamic equivalence is unacceptable because it does not carry "exact words", yet the KJV does not carry the exact words of "may it not be". Instead, it carries the dynamically equivalent words of "God forbid". You said it was not meaning, but rather, "exact words" that God has inspired. I was just asking if you would be willing to clarify your position because it seems to me like you are stuck in a double-standard (that word kind of sounds offensive, but I'm sorry I couldn't pick something a little less mean sounding). I know you aren't a believer in advanced revelation or double-inspiration (which might attempt to explain the apparent contradiction as a God ordained change), so I'm trying to make heads or tails of your stand.

If I am in error or missed something, please point it out (which is why I asked for clarification on your stand).

[Jerry]

I didn't have an opportunity to reread the article today - I just remembered Kinney had one on that subject and found it on his site. I need to refresh my mind on what it says.

There is a big difference between translating something to a corresponding phrase in the receptor language and winging it/paraphrasing it/putting it in your own words (ie. that get across the theology that you want to bring across, instead of what the Bible actually says).

God forbid is an acceptable equivalent phrase in English for the underlying Greek word. Dynamic equivalency translations are not looking for equivalent phrases/words, but are supposedly an attempt to bring across the ideas/thoughts of the author (like they know what Paul, etc. was thinking...).

[JerryNumbers]

Using Dynamic equivalency, when they use that, is that when they are changing something just so they can have enough changes to get a copyright.

That is one of the main problems with the MV's, they change to much stuff just where they can get a copyright so they can fill their pockets with money.

What they should be most worried about is God's Word staying true, not making enough changes that they can get a copyright and make money.

[Kubel]

Using Dynamic equivalency' date=' when they use that, is that when they are changing something just so they can have enough changes to get a copyright.[/quote']

Dynamic equivalence uses the thought-for-thought method of translation (where the thought is translated), rather than the word-for-word method of translation (where the words are translated literally). Dynamic equivalence is necessary in translation (even if a translation aims at being as literal as possible) because sometimes translating word-for-word will completely lose the meaning of what is being translated. That's what people refer to when they say "it looses something in the translation".

"May it not be" carries the same meaning as "God forbid", but they are not word-for-word translations of each other. Instead, they are dynamically equivalent (thought-for-thought). Jerry feels that translating thought-for-thought is unacceptable, yet the KJV contains thought-for-thought translations (as does every other translation that I'm aware of).

Of course, I agree with Jerry in that I would prefer as much literalness as possible so long as such literalness does not have an impact on meaning when it comes through the language barrier.

[Jerry]

You misunderstand my point. It may be necessary to give a slightly different rendering because we may not have the same saying in English that we might find in a passage of the Bible - however, to translate the WHOLE Bible that way is playing loose with the text.

For example, the Spanish Bible used "vaya con Dios" (literally translated as "Go with God") instead of "God bless" - they basically mean the same thing, but are not the exact same phrases. I don't have a problem with that as the Spanish use that phrase to mean the same thing as we do by our English phrase.

But to take some liberty and translate the phrase as "may the Spirit shine on you" would not be the same thing at all. I am using a made up example to get the point across. One is acceptable and perhaps necessary in translating SOME passages of the Bible - but the other is not.

For example (and this is a real case), "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as a coconut." There might be some comparisons - but snow and coconut are not the same. The purity of fresh snow is a much better comparison than that of a coconut.

"The pig of God that takes away the sin of the world" - a pig is not the same as a lamb. A pig is an unclean animal! Plus, by translating it as such, the Biblical parallels/types and cross references are completely lost to the readers.

[John the Baptist]

I do not like the NIV. It is weak in many places. I prefer a strict translation. Yes there are some places such as the in Romans chapter 6 where the phrase God forbid is an equivalent translation. I like the KJV, the ASV and the NASV.

God Bless
John