The use of "dynamic equivalence" in translation of modern bible versions
What is "Dynamic Equivalence?"
"Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, terms coined by Eugene Nida, are two dissimilar translation approaches, achieving differing level of literalness between the source text and the target text, as employed in biblical translation… The two have been understood basically, with dynamic equivalence as sense-for-sense translation (translating the meanings of phrases or whole sentences) with readability in mind, and with formal equivalence as word-for-word translation (translating the meanings of words and phrases in a more literal way) keeping literal fidelity." ~ wiki
In another words, dynamic equivalence makes allowance for the translators to translate the word of God according to their whims and fancies. The Living Bible is one of the best example of modern bibles for illustrating what dynamic equivalence is all about. Some comparisons between the 1611 King James Bible (KJV) and the Living Bible (LB) will show you what I mean:
Psalms 34:20
KJV: "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."
LB: "God even protects him from accidents."
Ezekiel 2:1
KJV: "Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee."
LB: "Stand up, son of dust and I will talk to you."
Zechariah 2:8
KJV: "he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye."
LB: "he who harms you sticks his finger in Jehovah's eye."
John 2:4
KJV: "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."
LB: "I can't help you now, He said, It isn't yet my time for miracles."
I can go on and on, but this is the essence of what I was trying to illustrate when I said modern bible versions is an attempt by natural men in helping other natural men to understand the things of the Spirit of God apart from the Holy Ghost. The unaltered gospel is only found in every word of God, in the 66 books of the Holy Bible. However, there are many counterfeit bibles these days. Every modern bible version is not only translated from fake manuscripts (OT: Rudolf Kittel Text; NT: Westcott & Hort Text), but they were also translated using dynamic equivalence, a technique made popular by Eugene Nida (November 11, 1914 – August 25, 2011). Eugene Nida was a bible-critic. He did not believe in the actual words of the LORD. To him, the translation of the word of God was “negotiable” in the sense that he did not believe there is such thing as the absolute truth, the absolute word of God.
1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
This verse tells us that God is an Author, but he is not the author of confusion. This also goes to show that there is another "author," and that author is the real "author of confusion." How do we know if we are reading the real Holy Bible? Actually, it is real simple to figure out, because there are only two lines of bible ascension:
Massoretic Text (OT) + Textus Receptus (NT), where the 1611 King James Bible was ascended from.
Rudolph Kittel Text (OT) + Westcott & Hort Text (NT), where most of the modern bible versions were ascended from. Even part of the NKJV and MEV followed the translations from this text.
The source text of the real Holy Bible and counterfeit bibles are not the same. Secondly, the method of translation used in the 1611 King James Bible and that of modern bible versions is not the same. The 1611 King James Bible was translated based on a literal word-for-word procedure, and all the work was done in the open. There were initially 54 scholars divided into 6 teams but deaths and withdrawals reduced it to 47. Each scholar first made his own translation, then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each section had completed a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went through the hands of the entire body of translators. To guard further against possible errors another committee was formed by selecting two from each of the three companies.
Modern bible versions were translated based on "dynamic equivalence," an approach popularized by Eugene Nida. According to Eugene Nida, it is a "sense-for-sense" translation technique, meaning that the bible was translated with readability in mind. This would be the kind of bibles translated with the "natural man" in mind, as opposed to the literal "word-for-word" translation used for the 1611 King James Bible. Dynamic Equivalence makes allowance for the translators to translate from the source text according to their own biases, and not according to what the actual text says it means. This approach allows the translators to further add unto or take away from the source text. But all that being said, when the source text is different, it does not matter how good a job the translators do, the end result will still be a different translation.
Previously, when I shared my testimony of conversion in a public forum, there was someone who asked me the question:
"If you compare KJV with the modern translation of the Bible such as NKJV or ESV (not the paraphrase versions), do you find any major difference in the fundamental of Christianity?"
Below was my reply to him:
The short answer to your question is 'Yes,' but this is not the forum to go into any lengthy exposition pertaining to this question. However, I will quote you some things. First and foremost:
Psalms 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The words of the LORD are pure words means nothing can be added nor anything taken away from it. The words of the LORD can be translated into different languages, but nothing can be added nor anything taken away from it. Any additions, subtractions or modifications to the words, they are no longer pure.
Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
How does one add unto or take away from the words of the LORD? The context of this question is strictly limited to the words of the LORD in the book. Firstly, it is done by substituting scripture with non-scripture. It is common knowledge that the underlying text for the 1611 King James Bible (KJV) is not the same as that of any modern bible versions, including the New King James (NKJV). When the underlying text is different, it does not matter how good a job the translators do, the end result will still be a different translation. God cannot say one thing in a translation, and then another thing in another translation.
Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
Every word of God is pure. The words of the LORD can be translated into different languages, but any deviation from the word of truth, no matter how insignificant, then God is not true to his promise, and he has not preserved his words. Then one may say that means "God only preserve his words in the original manuscripts." The problem with this sort of statement is that there are no verses that support it. On the contrary, there are many verses telling us that it is not the will of God to preserve the original manuscripts, verses such as:
1 Peter 1:24-25 "For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
Proverbs 25:1 "These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out."
Jeremiah 36:27-28 "¶ Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, 28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned."
“The Holy Spirit was not concerned with preserving the original manuscripts. While we may wish that these ancient documents were still around, the Holy spirit chose not to protect them indefinitely. The obvious fact that they no longer exist is irrefutable proof that the Holy Spirit did not want to keep them intact. In fact, an emphasis on the original manuscripts is unscriptural. Whenever a higher critic makes much ado about the original manuscripts, he is violating a principle of the Word of God in placing undue attention on something the Scriptures virtually ignore.” — Tim Fellure, "Neither Jot Nor Tittle"
Moreover, there are also many verses which tells us that God will translate his words into another tongue, verses such as:
John 1:41 "He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ."
1 Corinthians 12:10 "To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:"
Secondly, one can add unto or take away from the words of the LORD by the technique of translation. Again, it is common knowledge that the translation method employed in the translation of the 1611 King James Bible (KJV) differs from that employed in the translation of modern bible versions, including the New King James (NKJV). The KJV is translated based on "formal equivalence," meaning, literal word-for-word translation. Moreover, the translators were organized into six groups which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language. Each scholar would first made his own translation, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each section had completed a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went thru the hands of the entire body of translators. To guard further against possible errors another committee was formed by selecting two from each of the three companies. Then the entire version came before this select group where all differences of opinion were ironed out. It puts the finishing touches upon the work, and in 1611 prepared it for the printers.
Modern bible translations are not so. Modern bibles are translated based on "dynamic equivalence," an approach popularized by Eugene Nida (1914 - 2011). He was a bible critic. This method of translation is basically that the translators have the liberty to substitute the words of the text according to their whims and fancies of what a particular word means, not according to what the text says it means. In a 2002 interview with Christianity Today, Nida was asked:
"What is the impact of multiple translations?" He said "It makes people begin to think. As long as all people have the King James Bible, they didn't think. It is terribly important to have different translations to get a good argument started."
Those were his words verbatim. Nida did not believe in the perfect preservation of God's words. He believed that God only preserved his words in part, and then man has to do the patching. That is where the bulk of man's ideas and philosophies got injected into the translation, and that is dangerous. It is natural men helping other natural men in understanding the things of the Spirit of God apart from the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
I still have a lot more to say, but I suppose these are the main points of my answer to your question. Personally, I will not build my faith on shifting sand. That's why I left NCC. That's why I threw away every modern bible versions that I bought. That's what I did when God saved me and sanctified me from the unclean thing.
Read also: