Page 200 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY

Word. Who is man to make simple that which God did Who is wise enough to so rewrite the Bible? How can
not make simple? The Bible is God’s Book. Does any we know that such changes do not somehow corrupt
fallen man know better than God what man needs to some important meaning of the Word of God?
hear? Those involved in this kind of thing do not even
Contrast today’s thinking among Bible translators agree among themselves about how far to go in making
with that of faithful William Tyndale of old. “I call God changes. While agreeing that changes should be made
to record against the day we shall appear before our to adapt the Scriptures to man’s culture, the proponents
Lord Jesus, to give a reckoning of our doings, that I of dynamic equivalency disagree among themselves as
never altered one syllable of God’s Word against my to how far to go in this. If dove can mean some other
conscience, nor would [I so alter it] this day, if all that is kind of bird, who is to say what kind of bird is a proper
in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honour, or riches, substitute? Nida, for example, often allows more drastic
might be given me.” changes than Beekman. Beekman allows more drastic
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY CONFUSES TRANSLATION changes than some of the other translators involved in
WITH EVANGELISM AND TEACHING. this. It has become a world of confusion and
The translator is to faithfully transmit the words and uncertainty. Why? Because man has become the
message from the original into the receptor language as arbitrator of what is the Word of God.
literally as possible. In so doing he should obviously Instead of being content with exactly that which God
attempt to make the translation as plain for the readers has written, and seeking to translate the words of the
AS POSSIBLE without doing damage to the original Bible as exactly and literally as possible, the gurus of
words and form. The translator is not free to simplify dynamic equivalency have launched out upon the
that which God has not simplified in the original text. uncertain seas of contextualization. Their rules are man-
Utter faithfulness to the original text should be the sole made and therefore relative. Having loosed themselves
concern of the Bible translator. from the exactness of the original text of Scripture, they
The evangelist’s work, then, is to explain that have no objective, dogmatic criteria upon which to base
message to the lost, and the teacher’s job is to explain their translation decisions.
that message to the saved. Ep. 4:11-12. The Bible DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY CONFUSES INSPIRATION
translator whose overriding goal is to make the Bible WITH TRANSLATION.
clear to the unsaved so that they need no evangelist, of Dynamic equivalency proponents wrongly apply facts
necessity, becomes a Bible corrupter. about inspiration to the work of Bible translation. They
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY MAKES THE BIBLE say that God wrote to be understood and adapted His
CONFORM TO MAN’S CULTURE RATHER THAN Word to a particular culture; thus when translators
MAKING MAN’S CULTURE CONFORM TO THE BIBLE. adapt the Scriptures to today’s cultures, it is supposed
We have seen that dynamic equivalency adapts the that they are merely following God’s example. Beekman
Scriptures to man’s culture. Several real life examples and Callow develop this thinking in Translating the
were given: lamb is translated seal pup; fig tree Word of God:
becomes banana tree; dove becomes gigi bird; foxes Naturalness is a prerequisite to ease of understanding.
becomes coyotes; snow becomes coconut; candlestick such men. They preached to be understood and they
becomes a grain bin; plough becomes a hoe; storehouse wrote to be understood. At least two of the New
becomes a basket; sword becomes dissension; son of Testament writers explicitly say so. In 2 Corinthians
1:13, Paul says, “For we write you nothing but what
man becomes older brother. The list could be endless. you can read and understand” (RSV). ... Luke also says
There are two very serious problems with this. First, in the preface to his gospel that “it seemed good to me
this type of thing changes God’s Word. Those doing this also ... to write an orderly account for you, most
believe the changes are justified to enable people to excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth
understand the Bible. In effect, though, they are concerning the things of which you have been
changing God’s Word and are robbing people of God’s informed” (Luke 1:3-4 RSV). To assume that the
words. I don’t believe ANY of the changes we have seen original readers had considerable difficulty
are justified. Man simply does not have such authority. understanding what was written is, in effect, to assert
that the apostles were clumsy and inept in their God-
Second, this type of thing destroys the authority of given task of communicating the truth in their
God’s Word. The mind of the translator becomes the preaching and writing. Paul, Peter, John, James, Luke,
authority. Who is to say if a gigi bird is a proper and the others wrote clearly and were readily
substitute for the dove? Who is to say that a hoe is a understood. The original writings were both natural in
proper substitute for a plough, or a banana tree for the structure and meaningful in content.
fig tree? Who knows enough to make such judgments?

200 Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity