Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.

WKjI6H-Hi1s

Forgot
LOG IN Password? SIGN UP Grab the Tapatalk App 0 Search: GO

The_King.gif

autver.gif

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it;... I am the LORD; and there is none
else. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth:...
Isaiah 45:18-19

avpub.gif

A great place to find a King James Bible and other goodies!

AV 1611 GOD'S WORD > Why KJV Only? II > Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? RSS Email

0 Points

Remove this ad

Forum Jump New Topic Add Reply

Previous Topic Next Topic

Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron?

Author Comment
BelieveInJesus Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? Lead [-]

TAGS : None

One reason for so many corruptions in the new versions of today is the 'dynamic
equivalence' technique of translation. Notice that 'dynamic equivalence' is an
oxymoron, since dynamic means to change and equivalent means the same. I suppose
it's no wonder that today modernistic scholars would use oxymorons to describe their
techniques, reminding one of George Orwell's 1984:
>>
Posts: 1982
Jul 31 01 8:52 PM
As the book is beginning, Winston begins to contemplate setting himself against Big
Brother and the Party, but of course is reluctant, knowing that even thinking about such
Reply Quote More
a thing could easily result in his death. The three sentences sum up what the party
stands for, and they are:

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
>>>
To this in the modern day we might add
"Dynamic Equivalence"

1 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment

Anyhow as the below article shows:

>>>
according to this view, ..., Language is not fixed, but is a dynamic mechanism.
Translation is perceived by Nida, and others following Chomsky, as something more
than a comparison of corresponding structures. This generative mechanism lies at
the heart of the so-called dynamic equivalence method of translating as used in the
New International Version. The sentence in the text in the source language is
reduced, using quasi-mathematical formulae, to a simple kernel sentence, it
is then transferred like this into the receptor language of the translation. By
the same process, the simple sentence in the receptor language of the
translation is now made to generate an equivalent to that of the original
sentence in the source language.
>>>

So we see the pseudo-science (or science falsely so-called) of modernisitc lower textual
criticism has amidst it's means of text corruption this arcane methodology that only a
populace dumbed-downed by higher critical/modernistic propaganda would ever
swallow as a means of translationg God's Words.
Here's the article:

From:
www.balaams-ass.com/journ...neword.htm
>>>>
A central figure in modern Bible translation has been Eugene A. Nida. In a seminal work
on Bible translating published in 1964, Toward a Science of Translating, he lists five
developments he regards as most significant in their effect upon the theory of
translation and therefore upon his own methods. He writes: The first of these is the
rapidly expanding field of structural linguistics. In Europe the influence of Ferdinand de
Saussure has been unequaled. (p.21) The link between translating the Bible and
modern translating science is made by Nida himself in the second of these points. A
second development is the application of present-day methods in structural linguistics
to the special problems of Bible translation by members of the Summer Institute of
Linguistics, also known as the Wycliffe Bible Translators.

There are two main streams of thought with respect to the origin of language. The
behaviourist assumes language can be explained like much else as being habits built up
in an environment of social conditioning, similar in many ways to the process by which
rats in a psychological laboratory learn to obtain food by pressing the appropriate bar
in their cage. Prominent exponents of this view would be J. B. Watson, B. F. Skinner,
and of particular note, Leonard Bloomfield. The second view maintains there is more to
man than what can be observed of his behaviour. He has a mind, and his capacities and
activities can be described as mental and rational. Language is innate and not simply
acquired. Noam Chomsky holds this view.

Noam Chomsky has been a major influence on the work of Nida, whose Bible
translating methods are now used almost universally. Chomsky came to prominence in
the 1960s as an outspoken critic of American policies in Vietnam. He was a hero of the
New Left, risking imprisonment for paying only half his taxes, he also gave
encouragement to young men to refuse military service. Whilst there may be reason
for Bible believers to concur with Chomskys view that grammar and language is first
innate rather than being purely socially acquired, because he rejects any notion of
language as being God-created, his views in the end will not be biblical.

We can accept that there exists an intimate relationship between the structure of
language and the innate properties and functioning of the mind, and as a result there
will be an underlying grammatical structure common to all languages, but we are still
not saying the same things as Chomsky. We contend that this is because God made
language this way, also that the confusion of tongues at Babel supports this, Chomsky
would hardly accept that. There are elements in Chomsky that may at first glance
appear to mirror biblical teaching, but we must take care not to assume these things
are necessarily the same as the teaching of Scripture.

According to Chomsky, his grammars are concerned with describing lang-uage as a

purely formal system without necessarily any reference to meaning. Language being
the instru-ment used to express meaning, he believes it is quite possible to describe
the instrument without considering the use to which it may be put. The basic idea
underlying Chomskys generative and transformational grammar is that by following a
number of distinct operations, rather like applying mathe-matical formulae, a sentence
in its simplest form can be extended indefinitely.

Theoretically at least, the number of grammatical sentences generated from the

simplest form, according to this view, is infinite. Language is not fixed, but is a dynamic
mechanism. Translation is perceived by Nida, and others following Chomsky, as
something more than a comparison of corresponding structures. This gen-erative

2 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment
mechanism lies at the heart of the so-called dynamic equivalence method of translating
as used in the New International Version. The sent-ence in the text in the source
language is reduced, using quasi-mathematical formulae, to a simple kernel sentence,
it is then transferred like this into the receptor language of the translation. By the same
process, the simple sentence in the receptor language of the translation is now made to
generate an equivalent to that of the original sentence in the source language.

Our primary objection to this method must be that it disregards the fact that the
original words were God-given and so cannot be changed. Should this procedure be
followed consistently, words will have been interfered with and changed in the Hebrew
and Greek text even before a transfer is made into the language of the translation. To
those in evangelical circles who have forsaken the biblical teaching on inspiration this is
of little concern, since they feel that as the original document spoke meaningfully to its
readers, so only an equally meaningful translation can have this same power to inspire
present-day receptors (Nida, p.27). Here inspiration is understood in terms of the
response of the reader to Scripture.

What all those using the New International Version are telling us is that the doctrine of
verbal inspiration does not matter, that they have now discarded it.

Translation is a complex and difficult task to accomplish well. Anyone with anything
more than a passing knowledge of a second language will testify to this. A word in one
language will not cover the identical range of meaning as its equivalent in another.
Tenses may be missing in one language that are found in another, and even should they
exist, they will often be used in a different way.

What the French Revolution of 1789 was to the political world, Romanticism was in the
world of music, painting, and literature. Its worship of the ima-gination and human
creativity would create the universe anew. It preached a man-centred substitute
salvation, often borrowing heavily from Christian phraseology. Translation was no
longer a mechanical process designed to make known a particular text, be it the Bible
or Shakespeare, instead it was a vital creative act spring up from within the translator.
A translation is to be inspired by a higher creative force so that it is no longer simply an
everyday task devoid of the original spirit that shaped it, it is a re-creation.

Almost pre-empting the work of Chomsky, the god-hating Shelley wrote in The Defence
of Poetry: It were as wise to cast a violet into a crucible that you might discover the
formal principle of its colour and odour, as to seek to transfuse from one language to
another the creations of a poet. The plant must spring again from its seed, or it will
bear no flower and this is the burthen of the curse of Babel How these infidels knew
their Bible! So we uncover the true parentage of modern exponents of dynamic trans-
lation methodology! They are giving us new bibles, inspired recreations and not the
inspired Word of the living God.

It needs must be the purpose of the translators to produce an accurate and readable
word by word translation of the original languages so that the reader can be certain still
to have in his hands the very words God gave and has preserved. In some instances
Martin Luther found it necessary to create completely new words in German to reflect
the original precisely, something the German lang-uage readily allows because of the
tendency to use compound words. In his Circular Letter on Translation (1530), Luther
uses the verbs bersetzen (to translate) and verdeutschen (to Germanise) almost
interchangeably. The translators of the AV succeeded wonderfully in capturing the
original phraseology so that all kinds of Hebrew expressions, not native to English,
have found their way into our Bibles. It is unique English, biblical English, English
formed by the Hebrew and Greek of the texts from which it came and not dictated to
by the language into which it was transferred and yet it still remains eminently
readable and understand-able. It was certainly never the language of the common
man, although the literate common man would have easily understood it.

Those who accuse us of wanting to preserve Elizabethan English have once more either
misunderstood the facts, or are themselves guilty of misinterpreting them. A.T.
Robertson writes in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament: "No one today speaks
the English of the King James Version, or ever did for that matter, for though, like
Shakespeare, it is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet unlike Shake-speare it reproduces to a
remarkable extent the spirit and language of the Bible." That God was at work in a
most wonderful and special way in giving us our Authorised Version must be apparent
to every true believer. It was the purpose of all early Bible translators to make the
complete text of the Bible accessible to the layman and not to re-create it! The
language of the Authorised Version was never spoken by anyone.

There was no attempt made by the AV translators to make the Hebrew and Greek
conform to Elizabethan or Jacobean speech. The translators were interested in
preserving the God-breathed originals in readable English rather than turning it into the
language of the street. When Bible translations are tied in to changeable contemporary
language rather than the source texts of the eternal, unchangeable Word of God, new
translations will continue to be in demand as present ones become dated. It seems that

3 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment
the publishers of modern copyrighted versions and the merry band of scholars they
support have truly found a goose laying golden eggs.

What has been said about translation finds its counterpart in hermeneutics, or the
interpretation of the Bible. Many commentators could save reams of paper by turning
their often not inconsiderable skills to more profitable occupations than pandering to
the doubts of infidel scholars and seeking to answer them on their own level of unbelief.
Many problems in Scripture are problems only to those denying the authenticity and
authority of Scripture: eg. the authorship of the Pentateuch or Isaiah, the identity of
Darius, the synoptic problem of the Gospels, etc., etc. All that many of these matters
require to solve them is the response of a believing heart to the plain statements of
Scripture.

It is hardly surprising that those who would have us treat the Bible as any other book,
who prefer to overlook its providential preservation, see its inspiration not as
describing the nature of the text but the response of the reader, also promote
rationalistic systems of biblical interpretation. Methods of interpreting secular
litera-ture are being applied shamelessly to the Word of God. Evangelicals, as usual,
have been quick to be seen at the forefront in this latest fad. One of the most influential
in this field has been the German philosopher, Hans Georg Gadamer, who has
elaborated on ideas found in Heidegger. In his study Truth and Method (1960),
Gadamer enquires after the meaning of the literary text. Has the authors intention any
relevance to meaning, can we hope to understand texts from which we are separated
by time and culture? Language is said to belong to the society in which I live before it
belongs to me.

The meaning of a literary work can never be exhausted by the intentions of the author.
Passing from one culture and historical context to another, new meanings are gained,
never anticipated by the author. Applied to Scripture such interpretative methods are
disastrous. There can be no once-and-for-all-time objective meaning. The possibility of
a book containing timeless truths, readily accessible to men of all ages is thus ruled
out. The Bible is said to mean what it means to me today. At this point translating and
interpretation overlap. What the Scripture is saying is determined by an understanding
relative to our own modern situation, not by what God intended us and all men in all
ages to know, and has caused to be infallibly recorded in His Word. According to these
principles of interpretation, the Bible can only have a meaning for us relative to our
modern age and in a language appropriate to our age. This sounds all too familiar, does
it not? There are many variations on this theme, and even many other tunes, but why
should we even listen to them, let alone whistle any of them ourselves?

In Conclusion
That we may find life in His Son, and walk aright, God has given us the Bible. He has
watched over it with infinite care down through the years. In the Authorised Version
God speaks to us in English, infallibly, reliably, with absolute and irresistible authority.
>>>>

Advertisement

Remove this ad

4 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment
Advertisement

Remove this ad

BelieveInJesus Re: Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? #1 [-]

From:
translate.google.com/tran...safe%3Doff
>>>
. Eugene Nida (1914-)

This is the father and guru of blasphemous Dynamic Equivalence, the biggest crime and
theological treason that a translator can commit! It was also the coordinator of
Posts: 1982 research of translations of the UBS of 1970 the 1980. This heretic denies the vicarious
Jul 31 01 9:57 PM atonement of Christ (payment of the sin in place of the pecador), she affirms that the
Reply Quote More register of angelicais visits is not for being taken literally, and that the Bible infallible
nor is not verbally inspired. The reason of believers to buy the method of translation of
this apostate is a mystery...
>>>

From:
watch.pair.com/message2.html
>>>
1. New purpose

"The older focus in translating was the form of the message ... The new focus,
however, has shifted from the form of the message to the response of the receptor."
(Nida, Theory & Practice, p.1)

Note: Serving man becomes more important than preserving God's Word - Ro.1:25

2. New principles - contrasted with Scriptural principles

a. Concerning languages of the Bible

"The languages of the Bible are subject to the same limitations as any other natural
language." (Nida, Theory & Practice, p.7)

Note: God specifically chose the Hebrew and Greek language as the basis of Scripture -
II.Ti.3:16, II.Pet.1-.21

b. Concerning form of words of the Bible

"To preserve the content of the message the FORM MUST BE CHANGED." (Nida, Theory
& Practice, p. 5)

Note: The form of the words of Scripture must remain unchanged - 11.Tim. 1:13

c. Concerning translation of the Bible

"The translator must attempt to reproduce the meaning of a passage as understood by

the writer." (Nida, Theory & Practice, p. 8 )

Note: The writers did not always understand what they wrote - Dan.12:8-9,
I.Pet.1:10-12, Is.55:8-9.

d. Concerning interpretation of the Bible

"The writers of the Biblical books expected to be understood." ( Nida, Theory &

5 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment
Practice, p.7)

Note: The writers did not expect to be understood, except by the teaching ministry of
the Holy Spirit - II.Pet.3:16, I.Cor.2:6-16, Jn.16.12-13, I.Jn.2:27

3. New techniques

a. Dynamic equivalence

1) Meaning - "change" (Ro.1:25)

"'Dynamic' means: 'lb. Of or pertaining to dynamics, active; opposed to static;

pertaining to change or process'." (Waite, p.101, quoting Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1949, p.257)

2) Basis - Transformational Grammar

"There is a whole area in the field of English called Transformational Grammar, where
everything is changed from one form to another [such as changing a verb to a noun].
This is the real seed plot of the so-called DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY where you don't have
the words brought over into English (or another language) word for word" (Waite, p.90)

3) History - Eugene Nida - see "New Purpose" and "New principles," above

'The modern history of DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE began with Eugene Nida. He was the
man who was with the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the American Bible Society, and the
United Bible Society. He popularized this DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE method which is used
throughout the world." (Waite, p.93)

"In 1947, Eugene Nida wrote the book, 'Bible Translating', published by the United Bible
Society ... of London." (Waite, p.19)

4) Concept

"Dynamic equivalency interprets the text rather than translates the text." (Johnson)

"Subtracting, changing, and adding to the Word of God, are the essence and heart of
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY in its approach to translation. It's not translation, but changing
the Word of God. It is pure paraphrase." (Waite, p.,43)

Note. Dr. Waite's view is different from Gordon Fee's (see below) who treats dynamic
equivalence as something different than paraphrase. Dr. Waite is right; any change
becomes paraphrase, whether it rejects changes in the Greek base, or non-literal
translation changes from Greek to English. Therefore, this study has treated "The
Message" as a product of dynamic equivalence as well as paraphrase.

5) Problem

"...if they use this DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE technique of translation (t)hey can change it
at will. That is the saddest thing in the whole picture of our modern versions and in the
whole translation and version problem ... All of it is hypothesis and guesswork by men.
Anything they want to come up with is right. So, we see that DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE is
more important even than the textual issue..." (Waite, P.98 )

b. Paraphrase/free (See Gordon Fee in V. B.)

1) Meaning

"The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern
about using the exact words of the original. A free translation, sometimes called a
paraphrase, tries to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible." (Fee,
p.35)

2) Problems

a) Commentary, not translation

"A free translation ... can ... stimulate your thinking about the possible meaning of the
text." (Fee, p.36)

"The problem with a free translation ... especially for study purposes, is that the
translator updates the original author too much. Furthermore, such a 'translation' all
too often comes close to being a commentary." (Fee, p.36-7)

b) Single translator

6 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment
"A free translation is always done by a single translator, and unless the translator is
also a skilled exegete who knows the various problems in all of the biblical passages,
there is a danger that the reader will be mislead." (Fee, p.37)

Note: Then why does he endorse "The Message"?

4. New theology

"How many of you would be happy to have John 1:1 translated 'in the beginning was
Logic, and Logic was with God and Logic was God; as a Reformed theologian, Gordon
Clark, has advocated. Or perhaps you would be happy with the feminist rendering, 'in
the beginning was Wisdom and Wisdom was with God and Wisdom was God; because
some feminist theologians feel this is one way of feminizing the Trinity? The change of
one landmark word in the theological terrain can alter the entire landscape." (Letis,
p.79-80)

"The changes thus far are in the right direction and should contain the germs of a new
theology. Every age must produce its own theology." (Schaff, p.142)

Note: This referred to the texts of the English Revised and American Standard Bibles.

>>>

From:
www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/ar...00520.html
>>>
It has been a long time since I have studied these matters, but I am
virtually certain that Nida (at least) holds to a determinacy theory of
translation, unlike Quine's indeterminacy thesis. In fact, I don't know
how influenced Nida and the dynamic equivalence theorists are influenced
by Quine, Davidson, etc., at all. I think they are much more powerfully
influenced by the neo-Cartesianism of Chomsky, which is in radical
departure from the hyper-empiricist, "thoroughgoing pragmatism" of the
post-postivists. Perhaps some of the linguists on the list can comment
more accurately on the historical influences of the dynamic equivalence
theory of translation.
>>>
\
The Editors of the Critical Text
Carlo M Martini
Eugene Nida
Bruce Metzger
Kurt Aland

From:
www.google.com/search?q=c...tini&hl=en
>>>
2d. Eugene Nida (1914- )

Nida is the father of the dynamic equivalency theory of Bible translation. As to his view
of Bible inspiration. Nida says, ". . . Gods 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" (Message and Mission, 222-8 ) . Nidas view on the
inspiration of the Bible is Barthianistic.
>>>

From:
www.revelationwebsite.co....mouth8.htm
>>>
EUGENE NIDA

The preface to the First Edition of the UBS Greek New Testament tells us that:

"the project was initiated, organized, and administered by Eugene A. Nida, who also
took part in Committee discussions, especially those relating to major decisions of
policy and method."

Eugene Nida (1914- ) is a key promoter of the method of Bible translation known as
"dynamic equivalency". This is the loose paraphrasing method popularized in such
English translations as the Living Bible and the Today's English Version.

"Dr. Nida served as Executive Secretary of the Translations Department from 1946 to
December 1980. ... 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

7 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment
different languages. Dr. Nida was also Translation Research Coordinator for the United
Bible Societies from 1970 to 1980. While now retired, he retains his relationship with
the ABS and UBS as a Special Consultant for Translations, and is active in research,
writing and lecturing." (Record, American Bible Society, Mar. 1986, p. 17)

In 1979, Dr. Eugene Nida who headed the translation department, admitted that
Roman Catholics had begun participating and called it a "very important development."

Nida's view of biblical inspiration is that:

"God did not give eternal truths, but granted communication.... Gods 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. Only then does the Word of Life become life to the
receptor. The words are in a sense nothing in and of themselves. ... the word is void
unless related to experience" (Nida, Message and Mission, p. 221-228, New York:
Harper & Row, 1960).

"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 does not believe the Bible's own confession as to its nature:

"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." (2 Peter 1:21)

"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 Cor. 2:10-13, where Paul states that the very words of New Testament
Revelation were of God.

Nida says 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 apparently would put everything which man has touched in the category of
imperfection, in spite of the fact that some of man's things have come down from
heaven. This includes the Bible and the institutions of the Bible, such as the tabernacle,
the priesthood, and the church.

Nida says the accounts of angels and miracles are not 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 has nothing to do with culture. They are true accounts of
historical events. Jesus Christ believed in literal angels and interpreted the Old
Testament miracles literally.

Nida denies the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ:

"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).

Nida was co-author with Barclay M. Newman of the United Bible Societies' publication A
translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans. Commenting on Romans 3:25,
which says, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,"
this commentary states:

"...`blood' is used in this passage in the same way that it is used in a number of other

8 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

Author Comment
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."

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. Christs 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
bloodnot 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. Had
Christ died, for example, by beating, 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 the blood atonement often claim to believe in justification by grace, but they are
rendering the Cross ineffective by reinterpreting its meaning. There is no grace without
a true propitiation.

Propitiation 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 thisthe 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 Son.

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

Conclusions
The United Bibles Societies' Greek New Testament is produced by apostate men.
Trusting a modernist with the translation or proclamation of the Word of God, is like
trusting a wolf as a sheep dog. Obviously the men involved were unbelievers and the
entire translation was the work of the devil and not of God. The Lord Jesus Christ said
that false teachers are of their father the devil (John 8:44). And the Apostle Paul said,

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the
apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers
of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Corinthians
11:13-15).

Is the fact that Martini is a Catholic bishop significant? Does it matter?

According to Romanism, the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and is to receive
homage as such; the pope can make or change doctrine through his official
pronouncements, and such pronouncements are to be considered infallible by all
Christians; Mary is to be worshipped as the Mother of God and as the Queen of
Heaven; she is a perpetual virgin, is sinless, and can hear and answer prayer, having
ascended bodily into heaven; most Christians must go to a place called purgatory, a
place of fiery judgment, for some time after death before they can enter heaven; at
the Catholic mass the bread and wine actually become the literal body and blood of
Christ through the power of the Roman priest and the consecrated bread is to be
worshipped following the mass; Catholic priests are ordained to the order of
Melchisedec and have the power to forgive sins and to impart spiritual blessings
through the Roman sacraments; Catholic tradition is just as truthful and important as
the Scriptures; salvation is achieved through faith in Christ PLUS baptism AND the
sacraments of the Catholic church. Every one of these heresies taught by the Roman
Catholic Church was reaffirmed during the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

Surely it is more than a coincidence that since the days of the production of the English
Revised Version (with its preference for Catholic manuscripts), the reversal of the
Protestant Reformation has grown with amazing rapidity.
>>>>

Previous Topic Next Topic

Share This Forum Jump Add Reply

9 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.
Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron? in Why KJV Only? II Forum http://av1611godsword.yuku.com/reply/6397#.WKjI6H-Hi1s

AV 1611 GOD'S WORD > Why KJV Only? II > Dynamic Equivalence - An Oxymoron?
Click to subscribe by RSS
Click to receive E-mail notifications of replies

Remove this ad

Search by Verse Bible Gateway DIATHEKE

Dictionaries 1828 Webster's KJB Word Search Extrabiblical Sources Early Church Fathers
olivetree.comNRSVE-WORD New American
Dictionary.com American Heritage Merriam- (ccel.org) ECF (crosswalk) Works of John
Bible Geneva New English Translation World
Webster American-British Allwords.com Bunyan Works of Josephus
English Version LXX/Septuagint

Search by Word or Phrase Only

Search the Bible:
Search
for:

Whole Bible ----------------------- Old Testament New Testament ---------------------- Books of Law
in: Books of History Books of Wisdom Major Prophets Minor Prophets The Gospels Pauline
Epistles General Epistles Apocalyptic Books
The King James Version (Authorized) The New American Standard Bible The American
Standard Version The New King James Version Third Millennium Bible The New Living
Translation The New Revised Standard Version The Revised Standard Version The Good
using: News Bible in Today's English Version The Douay-Rheims Bible The KJV Strong's Version The
NAS Strong's Version New Century Version GOD'S WORD World English Bible The Bible in
Basic English The Darby Translation Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible Webster's
Bible Translation The Latin Vulgate Young's Literal Translation Wesley's New Testament
Include Study Tools HELP

Search WWW Search ezboard.com

Yuku forums Forum Find Forum Help Legal

© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.

10 de 10 18/2/2017 6:36 p. m.