Does inerrancy matter?? or is dynamic equivalence sufficient

Last night as I set at the dinner table my wife asked me If I could pour some gravey on her biscuits and handed me her plate, I heard her but I was not particularly listening, so subconsciously I took her plate and began to cut the biscuits in half before pouring on the gravey only to find that my wife did not want her biscuits cut, she had not asked me to cut the biscuits.
I had just subconsciously assumed that if she wanted gravey on her biscuits than that must mean that she wanted them cut. I was not listining to her specific words, I was just interpeting what I thought was her basic intent was. So still responding from some what of a subconscious mind set, I pushed the biscuits to the side and began pouring the gravey to the side of the biscuits, because in my subconscience, if you'r biscuits are not cut, then you would not pour gravey on them.
Because of the fact that I was not listining to my wifes specific words and only interpeting what I thought her real intent was, I once again fell short of her wishes by which she reminded me that she had specifically asked for me to pour gravey on her biscuits.

I jokingly responded to her that I was dynamic equivalently listining to her and not interested in her specific words, by doing so I was far from the mark of her true intent.

I wounder how often we as bible readers fall short of the actual intent because we only pay attention to the general concepts and not the specific written words

Pappa, we had my sister over for a visit one year and we were frying up some fish and shrimp. When is was all finished and was laying on a paper towel, she begin to start squirting lemon juice on all of it, I thought my wife was going to choke her. I know she did it because she always has, but are we that lost about others desires, that we feel everyone thinks the way we do? God help us all if this is the new norm, by the way, my sister is very narcissistic, as a lot of this nation is.

Proudpapa

I think that in part this may have to do with language as well. For if we translate this to our Bible reading we read in the English language but it tends to become inferior when wanting to investigate intentions even further. When I took some Spanish classes it brought out a whole new dimension to me. I.E. in English we have the word 'love' but to understand what it means a listener has to understand the context. In Spanish, they have various words for love so there is not mistaking what kind of love is meant whereas in English it can be hard to understand. The same with English and the Bible. We read things but how much are we understanding and appreciating the intent?

This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all.

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one-step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language in which a person needs to read. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language into which we translate the Bible. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.
Comparison Chart

The following chart represents a compilation of various ancient manuscripts, their original date of writing, the earliest copy, the number of copies in existence, and the time span between the originals and the copies. If the Bible is singled out to be criticized as unreliable then all the other writings listed below must also be discarded.1
Author \tDate
Written \tEarliest Copy \tApproximate Time Span between original & copy \t

Number of Copies
\tAccuracy of Copies
Lucretius \tdied 55 or 53 B.C. \t \t1100 yrs \t2 \t----
Pliny \t61-113 A.D. \t850 A.D. \t750 yrs \t7 \t----
Plato \t427-347 B.C. \t900 A.D. \t1200 yrs \t7 \t----
Demosthenes \t4th Cent. B.C. \t1100 A.D. \t800 yrs \t8 \t----
Herodotus \t480-425 B.C. \t900 A.D. \t1300 yrs \t8 \t----
Suetonius \t75-160 A.D. \t950 A.D. \t800 yrs \t8 \t----
Thucydides \t460-400 B.C. \t900 A.D. \t1300 yrs \t8 \t----
Euripides \t480-406 B.C. \t1100 A.D. \t1300 yrs \t9 \t----
Aristophanes \t450-385 B.C. \t900 A.D. \t1200 \t10 \t----
Caesar \t100-44 B.C. \t900 A.D. \t1000 \t10 \t----
Livy \t59 BC-AD 17 \t---- \t??? \t20 \t----
Tacitus \tcirca 100 A.D. \t1100 A.D. \t1000 yrs \t20 \t----
Aristotle \t384-322 B.C. \t1100 A.D. \t1400 \t49 \t----
Sophocles \t496-406 B.C. \t1000 A.D \t1400 yrs \t193 \t----
Homer (Iliad) \t900 B.C. \t400 B.C. \t500 yrs \t643 \t95%
New
Testament \t1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. \t2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) \tless than 100 years \t5600 \t99.5%

As you can see, the New Testament documents are very accurate. Therefore, when the scholars translate from the Greek into the English (or into any other language), we can trust that what is translated is accurate and reliable.....Matt Slick

Mr.BillPro

I don't know if your post was a response to mine or to another post but here is more light from my previous post.

English only has the word for 'love' whereas a language such as Spanish has multiple words for 'love' and they have varying degrees so that when a Spanish speaker uses a word the hearer understands and even a non native speaker will understand what type of 'love' is being spoken of. It is harder in English to discern this especially to a non native speaker.
How many times does one hear a preacher talk about LOVE he goes back to the original Greek to give it emphasis because the English language isn't versatile enough? I wonder if one reads a Spanish Bible if a Spanish speaker would pick up on it much more?

Bible translation Differences (criteria for excellence in reading and choosing a bible translation) Crossway books 2004 by Leland Ryken (Ph.D.,University of Oregon) Professor of English at Wheaton College and was Literary stylist for the (ESV) translation

endorsed by Dr.Wayne Grudem, Dr.R.Kent Hughes, Dr J.I.Packer, and cheif editor of of World Magazine Marvin Olasky

p.8

/ Here is my concern: Most readers of dynamic equivalent translations do not have any understanding as to the liberties that have been taken with the words of the original text. What dynamic translators give us is a translation plus a commentary, but we have no way of knowing where translation ends and the translation committee's commentary begins/

p.8-9
/...As John MacArthur has noted, such translationes "diminish the glory of divine revelation by being more concerned with the human reader than the divine author"./

'The NIV reconsidered A fresh look at a popular translation'
1990 Kerugma,inc by Earl Radmacher BA and MA from Bob Jones University and ThM and ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary and Zane Hodges BA degree from Wheaton and ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary

p.12 1. Decreasing Confidence in the inspired text.
The Holy Spirit conveyed the thoughts of God through the very words of scripture. We must be careful, therefore, of creating too great of a gulf between Gods thoughts and the human author's words. According to the Apostle Paul, he did not speak "in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches"(1Cor 2:13,NKJV)
Over the last fifty years, however, there has been a marked shift in translation theory later on in our book. For now it is enough to say that "dynamic equivalence" has led some of its practitioners into very free and imprecise style of Bible translation. The implication can be drawn that the exact wording of the inspired original is not crucial matters of concern.

just for clarity can someone give some example of which "translations" are "dynamic equivalents?"

Hi TMK

TMK wrote // just for clarity can someone give some example of which "translations" are "dynamic equivalents?"//

NIV,TNIV,REB,CEV,NLT, the Message and etc.

rather than literal translations like the KJV,NKJV,NASB,and ESV

Hi proudpapa,

dynamic equivalents? NIV,TNIV,REB,CEV,NLT, the Message and etc.

rather than literal translations like the KJV,NKJV,NASB,and ESV

This isn't entirely accurate. The translators of the NIV (1984) relied upon both moderate use of dynamic equivalence and also "literal" methods depending upon words, phrases, and whether or not it would make "sense" in a literal way. There have stated very plausible reasons for this in their forward and document some of those reasons on their publisher's website. It is also possible to contact them as well for an explanation to their translation techniques and methods. I suspect that some other versions/publishers/translators may do likewise.

Moreover, if you read the writings of the translators of the KJV, you will find that they weren't entirely "formal" or "literal" either. They may be a little more "literal" than versions like the NIV; however, they also had to conclude specific intent on quite a few occasions.

EXAMPLE: Acts 20:7
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=20&v=7&t=KJV#conc/7

Greek:

20:7 Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ κλάσαι ἄρτον ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς μέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον παρέτεινέν τε τὸν λόγον μέχρι μεσονυκτίου

KJV:

20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

A.) The word "first" is actually "μια" ("mia"). It literally is the number "one" but is rendered here as "first." In other places in the KJV, it is translated as "one," "first," "a certain," "a," and "the other." The translators assumed how it should be translated by getting a sense of the context.

B.) The word "week" is actually "σαββατων" ("sabbaton"). It literally means "sabbath" but is rendered "week" because of the sense of context with what the phrase is trying to convey. In 59 other instances, the KJV translators most translated this word as "sabbath" or "sabbath day." In nine cases, they rendered the word as "week."

C.) The word "day" does not appear as a word in the Greek at all. It is simply an ellipsis. In conjunction with the other way that the translators of the KJV judged this via context, it was rendered "day" in this passage.

This is just one example of how KJV translators used a form of what is often labeled "dynamic equivalence" (or "sense-by-sense" method) when translating the Bible. So, is the KJV a "literal" translation? Yes...but not in a formal or precisely literal word-for-word way. You can examine each and every passage of the KJV and will find multiple examples of how words are not translated literally but by sense through context.

A more accurate assessment would be to state that certain translations relied more on dynamic equivalence in certain instances than others. I hope that this makes sense. I know that Brother Ron Bailey ("philologos") has offered quite a bit of insight here at SermonIndex and elsewhere into the translation of the KJV and has helped clear up some of the myths and widespread assumptions as well.

Hi ccchhhrrriiisss,

This is not a KJV only thread even though I assume that you know my position,
It is rather precisely a thread on which type of translation method is best for the inspired Scriptures Dynamic Equivalent or an essentially literal translation philosophy, Even though we might take some short rabit trails off of this specific topic, to answer questiones or make points that are beyond these boundries, of which I will write specificaly true to my conviction. I do not desire to make this specific thread a KJV Only thread.

By keeping this thread a Dynamic Equivalent vs essentially literal translation philosophy thread, It provides me with an Arsenal of highly respected and Educated Christian elitist of whom I can position myself with, such as some whom I have mentioned thus far, to me none of that matters except when it comes to contending for the truth with a post Descartes generation.

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote /// I know that Brother Ron Bailey ("philologos") has offered quite a bit of insight here at SermonIndex and elsewhere into the translation of the KJV and has helped clear up some of the myths and widespread assumptions as well.///

This would not be necessary for this thread, For the differing issues of the accuracy is not so much as of one of the intelect as some may wrongly suppose but rather it is a difference of perspective,

we can see a difference of this type of philosophy even in our different translations.

such as when Henry Morris, Ph.D. pointed out

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19)

and of which he as myself concluded that such a passage reveales

'Oral or written testimony of human observers, no matter how trustworthy they may be, is still subject to human error, and not "inerrant" in the same way as Scripture. Christians must always remember that the written Word of God is more certain than personal memories or impressions. The experiences we have must never be viewed as validating God's Word. Rather, God's Word validates our experiences.' https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=48089&forum=34

I personaly would not come to that conclusion by this translation.

NIV 2 pet ch 1:19
/And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts./

As Henery said "The experiences we have must never be viewed as validating God's Word. Rather, God's Word validates our experiences.'"

Bible translation Differences (criteria for excellence in reading and choosing a bible translation) Crossway books 2004 by Leland Ryken (Ph.D.,University of Oregon) Professor of English at Wheaton College and was Literary stylist for the (ESV) translation

endorsed by Dr.Wayne Grudem, Dr.R.Kent Hughes, Dr J.I.Packer, and cheif editor of of World Magazine Marvin Olasky

p.15
Dynamic equivalent translators believe that the translator has the duty to make interpretive decisions for the ignorant reader. Eugene Nida, for example, claims that "the average reader is usually much less capable of making correct judgments about...alternative meanings than is the translator, who can make use of the best scholarly judgements on ambiguous passages" But if this is true, why is it that the translators, with their allegedly superior and reliable knowledge,cannot agree amoung themselves? instead of leading the Bible reading public into a better grasp of the original text, dynamic equivalent translations have confused the public by multiplying the range of renditiones of various Bible passages

If we ask why dynamic equivalent translations have destabilized the text, the answer is obvious: There are no adequate controls on the translation process. Once a translation committee does not feel bound to translate the words of the original but only the ideas, and once it decides to its satisfaction what a passage means, it is free then to choose whatever words it thinks best express the meaning that it has decided is correct. Clearly more controls on translation than this are needed.

Hi proudpapa,

I don't recall learning of your particular position on the topic. However, my post was not about "KJV-only" but about explaining what "dynamic equivalent" means and how a sense of it was used in the translation of what are often referred to as "literal" translations (like the KJV).

That was the purpose for my example and reason for my post. There are no literal word-for-word translations of the Word of God from Greek. It takes some determination on the part of translators to determine the best possible rendering for words, phrases and grammar.

I completely agree with the notion about the Word of God. I wouldn't -- nor would I want any translator -- to change the Word of God for any earthly form of "validation." However, I don't have any inside information that would make me think that any particular translator or scholarly version has done this.

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote
///I completely agree with the notion about the Word of God. I wouldn't -- nor would I want any translator -- to change the Word of God for any earthly form of "validation." However, I don't have any inside information that would make me think that any particular translator or scholarly version has done this.///

WE would not use a (NWT) because of some of the theological biasness that the JWs have conformed the Text to, such as

John ch 1 (NWT) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

do we see the slight difference from

John ch 1 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

yet this difference has massive theological ramificationes.

Like wise I am not a Calvinist, I have given many reasons for this that I have expressed in various threads

And even if I where as many are, I still would as many do not want my theological biasness inserted in my translation as What the NIV has done with its reformed theology.

For instance The NIV inserts the word 'sinful nature' In their translation the phrase 'sinful nature' is not a biblical word it is a theological word but no where in the greek or hebrew is the word sin and nature combined,
If you want as most likely you do believe that the Greek word Sarx not only encompasses the flesh but also some sinful nature that is your choice and I am not going to go into great deal in this thread argueing over it as I have in threads specificaly of that topic in the past.
But regardless we must conclude that men as Finney and Paris Reidhead and others did not and do not believe that sarx means sinful nature, As far as I am aware all essentially Literal bible translationes including the Reformed (ESV) and all old translations translate sarx as flesh

further more one of the key versus for the doctrine of sinful nature is

psalms 51 v 5 that reads

kjv 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NASB 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

ESV 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me

This verse has been of much controversy since Augustine, but in there defense all of these essentially Literal bible translationes translated this verse basicaly the same, even though I relize that most of the translators whom translated these scriptures are of the Augustinian persuasion they stayed consistent to the text.

Edwin H. Palmer executive secretary on the team that prepared the New International Version of the Bible was a staunch calvinist on page 13 of his book Five Points of Calvinism, [Edwin H. Palmer] 1972 baker books

He writes /The psalmist says that depravity applies even to babies: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.(51:5) This does not mean that sexual intercourse is evil, but rather that from conception and birth man is polluted with sin because of the fall of Adam./

But the problem is that many of us are not of the Augustinian tradition so we do not necessarily interpret this text as What Edwin does, many do and that is fine that he rights a book on his view and even fine if he rights a commentary on this passage but what is not fine is that they write a translation with this biasness such as this inserted into the text. As what the NIV has done and market it as an accurate translation

Psalm ch 51:3 NIV Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

John Piper on the NIV

The New International Version

Key question: the NIV appeared in 1978. I read it. Why didn't I use it? The reason I didn't use it is the reason I am here tonight. The NIV is the best-selling modern translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in print. The NIV makes up about 30% of all Bible sales. Among evangelicals the percentage would be far above 30% and is probably the Bible most evangelicals read most often. And the one most pastors use in preaching. Why am I not on board?

Not only am I not on board. I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church. I feel so strongly about this that I volunteered to do this tonight before I was asked. There is no coercion here. I feel what I am about to say with a passion built up over 25 years. I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it.

Now let me say again that the NIV is the precious Word of God. Oh, how careful we must be not to belittle the Word of God. And yet we must not put any human translation above criticism. God has used the NIV to bring millions of people to faith in Christ. But at the same time I believe there have been negative effects that could be avoided. My biggest concern has to do with preaching. When a paraphrase becomes the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the church, preaching is weakened—robust expository exultation in the pulpit is made more difficult. Preaching that gives clear explanations and arguments from the wording of specific Biblical texts tends to be undermined when a Bible paraphrases instead of preserving the original wording on good English. And when that kind of preaching is undermined, the whole level of Christian thinking in the church goes down, and a Bible-saturated worldview is weakened, and the ability of the people—and even the pastors themselves-to root their thoughts and affections in firm Biblical ground diminishes

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/good-english-with-minimal-translation-why-bethlehem-uses-the-esv

What is your take on paraphrased Bible translations?

Back in the 60s we loved Phillips Paraphrase. And the reason we could love it is because it was called a paraphrase. There's not a single Bible edition published today that will call itself a paraphrase, to their shame!

Everything is a "translation", and the reason is because, with the emergence of dynamic equivalence understandings of translation, anytime you try to distinguish between a paraphrase and a translation the person who holds one of those views will say, "All translation is paraphrase."

I say, "Well, I know what you mean. You can't find an exact equivalent to every Greek and Hebrew word and every Greek and Hebrew construction in English. That's true, you can't. But there's a difference between bringing 'obedience of faith' into English as 'obedience of faith' and 'obedience that comes from faith.'"

The first one gets very close to the Greek genitive 'obedience of faith' and includes all of its ambiguities. The second one tells the reader right off the bat what the translator thinks that ambiguity means. And I don't think translators should do that unless they have to (and they often have to).

So, yes, there's a difference with paraphrases, and they're valuable as interpretations.

So we ought to put right on the front of The Message, "A Paraphrase of the Bible," and then it would be valuable! Everybody could read it and say, "This is Eugene Peterson's interpretation of the Bible," and we would get gobs of insight from it!

But if you start substituting that kind of effort for your regular, daily Bible reading translation, then you're basically reading a commentary and depending on it and calling it the word of God.

I don't buy into the view that "Since every translation involves paraphrase, therefore there's no difference between a paraphrase and a translation." We ought to distinguish, and we ought to publish both and make the reader aware of how he should use them

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/what-do-you-think-about-paraphrased-bible-translations

Hi proudpapa,

The key to what I said was "scholarly" translations. There are undoubtedly translations and versions of the Bible that are born out of an attempt to alter the Word of God to say what biased individuals WANT it to say. Their translation work itself is called into question because of the pre-ordained goals that polluted the "methods" that they used.

However, I would be hard-pressed to place the NIV (1984) in the same boat with those individuals. It was translation that included scholars who came from a wide range of protestant denominations and groups who checked, cross-checked and "peer reviewed" one another's work.

I would also be careful about stating that the NIV "inserted" words into any particular passage without knowing for certain if this was a difference in the ancient texts that they used versus what they felt to be more reliable than Desiderius Erasmus's personal translation (the Textus Receptus) that was relied upon for older translations and versions.

There are obviously some differences between the NIV and KJV. However, as many have pointed out, many of these differences were simply due to differences in the original consulted texts themselves rather than any result of "dynamic equivalence." In all such cases, each difference must first be compared using the words, grammar, and usage of the translation (NIV, KJV, NASB, etc...) with the texts from which they were translated. Then, a comparison of the original texts must occur to see if the differences can be attributed to wording in the different consulted texts or, if those Greek words are the same, from differences in how they are translated into English.

I don't believe that anyone should assume or suggest that the translators of a scholarly, peer-reviewed scholarly translation like the NIV was worded differently from Textus Receptus derived translations because of a inherent biases in how the completed work should be worded. I hope that this makes sense. The translators of the NIV made it clear in their explanation of their translation that it was undertook without reference to doctrinal biases. While this could be incorrect, I have never found any reason to doubt them and I have spoken via email, snail mail and telephone with several of them -- even asking specific questions that referenced much-repeated accusations or questions about their methods and specific differences.

By the way, I am NOT a Calvinist either. I no more find the tenets of Calvinism in my NIV (1984) than I do in my KJV (1611/1769). I hope that this makes some sense.

Hi ccchhhrrriiisss

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote ///I would also be careful about stating that the NIV "inserted" words into any particular passage without knowing for certain if this was a difference in the ancient texts that they used versus what they felt to be more reliable than Desiderius Erasmus's personal translation (the Textus Receptus) that was relied upon for older translations and versions.///

ccchhhrrriiisss I am well aware of the difference of the recieved text(the Textus Receptus)and the Eclectic Alexandrian text, and where they differ in our translations.
I would guestimate that I have well over a hundred books on this this sort of subject from all perspectives rather it be White,Carson,Hills,Burgeon,Strauss,Ehrman,Sullivan,Jones,
Grady and so on, I have all of the NIV Defense Books of Ken Barker that I am aware of.
The Best 2 books by far that I have on inspiration are translations of 2 German books the one by Gerhard Maier The end of the historical critical method and the other that is the best of all written by an ex student of Rudolf Bultmann, Eta Linnemann 'Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical, (translated by Robert W Yarbrough)'

I would not completely agree with any book that I have but I would highly recommend (Eta Linnemanns) book to everyone

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote ///By the way, I am NOT a Calvinist either. I no more find the tenets of Calvinism in my NIV (1984) than I do in my KJV (1611/1769). I hope that this makes some sense.///

I have already showed clearly one tenent in the NIV, that neither Finney nor Paris Reidhead would have approved of since they clearly spoke against such a doctrine

I might post what Radmacher and Hodges wrote about the NIVs usage of the word sinful nature for sarx but I am such a slow typer I may put it off for another day, It is more detailed and better articulated than what I have written thus far.

About Translation Styles and the ESV

Keeping Step with History’s Great Translations

We chose the English Standard Version (ESV) as the text of the study bible because of the combination of its accuracy and its literary qualities. The ESV stands in the tradition of translation begun by William Tyndale in 1526 and continued by the King James Version (1611), the Revised Version (1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971), and the New King James Version (1983). The goal of translations in this tradition has been faithfulness to the language of the original texts as well as dignified beauty in the English translation.

Literal Translation

The translators of the ESV followed an essentially literal philosophy of translation. This philosophy aims to translate the precise words of the original text while also taking into consideration differences between the source language and the target language. The intent is to maintain as much as possible the structure of the original text, allowing the reader to discern the distinct styles of the different biblical authors while also retaining maximum clarity. This provides a translation that is transparent to the original text --- allowing modern readers to read what the original author wrote.

Dynamic Equivalence Translation

In the middle of the twentieth century another philosophy of translation rose to prominence, a philosophy commonly referred to as "dynamic equivalence." Dynamic equivalence emphasizes the reader rather than the words of the original text. If something in the original text may be too difficult or obscure for the modern reader, the original text is translated with words or phrases intended to communicate the same general concept --- a dynamic equivalent. Sometimes this is described as thought-for-thought translation as opposed to an essentially literal word-for-word type of translation. Most recent English Bible translations use dynamic equivalence. A list of these popular translations would include the Good News Bible (1976), the New International Version (1978), the Revised English Bible (1989), the New Living Translation (1996), and Today's New International Version (2005).

One of the fundamental disadvantages of dynamic equivalence translation is that it blurs the line between translation and commentary. Because the books of the Bible are ancient texts there are obscure idioms, customs, and words found in them. The same is true of any ancient text. Essentially literal translations attempt to translate what the author actually wrote and either explain a difficult word or phrase in a footnote or leave such explanations to commentators. Dynamic equivalence translations generally attempt to remove any such difficulties from the text by offering what the translators believe to be a more understandable modern English equivalent. This, by its very nature, however, often involves more subjective interpretation than translation. It also tends to remove any objective controls on the translators. If faithfulness to the words of the original text is rejected as the primary goal of translation, there are no reliable controls. Each translation committee determines for itself the degree to which a translation may depart from the words of the original text. The result is predictably confusing.

Translation Styles Compared

In his book The Word of God in English (pp. 81–82), Leland Ryken provides a helpful illustration of this problem by listing various translations of the middle part of 1 Thessalonians 1:3. First, he provides four translations that follow an essentially literal philosophy of translation:

"... your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ..." (KJV).
"...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (RSV).
"...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (NASB).
"...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (ESV).

Because these translations follow an essentially literal philosophy of translations, their translations of the original text are almost identical, and the reader knows what the original author actually wrote. By way of contrast, we may compare the way in which dynamic equivalent translations translate the same text:

"...your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (NIV, TNIV).
"...how you put your faith into practice, how your love made you work so hard, and how your hope in our Lord Jesus Christ is firm" (GNB).
"...your faithful work, your loving deeds, and your continual anticipation of the return of our Lord Jesus Christ" (NLT).
"...your faith and loving work and...your firm hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (CEV).

Not only are these translations strikingly different from the essentially literal translations, they are also strikingly different from each other. All of these translations insert explanatory words or phrases that are not found in the original text. Some completely replace the original phrases with their subjective interpretations. The line between translation and interpretation becomes hopelessly blurred, and the reader is left uncertain of what the original author wrote.

Understanding the problems caused by dynamic equivalence, the translators of the ESV chose to provide an essentially literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Also, just as the translators who worked on the King James Version worked from existing English translations, the translators of the ESV used an existing translation (the Revised Standard Version ) as a stylistic starting point as they translated the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Revised Standard Version (1971) is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901), which itself is a revision of the King James Version of 1611. The ESV, with its faithfulness to the original texts and high literary quality, is one of the best available contemporary English translations of the Bible. It is for this reason that Ligonier Ministries encourages its use.

http://www.ligonier.org/reformation-study-bible/about/why-esv/