I seldom say (or write) anything worth repeating, but occasionally I look back and think I had the right idea and managed to communicate it not too badly; which is just my self-justifying explanation for today’s post.
I hate really dislike paraphrasings and dynamic equivalent translations of the Bible. I want the Word of God, not an interpretation of it. 
Occasionally, I run into arguments in their favor from people who basically agree with me, but still think they are useful. The argument goes: Yes, we should have accurate translations, and these interpretive translations are not good; but for purposes of evangelism, and for young, new believers, we should use the more paraphrased versions. Then, when they are ready, we should introduce them to a good, essentially literal translation. I encountered this argument in a book I read awhile back (ironically, this one). At that time, I listed the following objections to that practice, which I still believe are valid:
- It has the potential to create confusion, and undermine confidence in the Word of God. What are we saying if we give a Bible one day, only to return later with another, better Bible, explaining that “some of the stuff in the first Bible we gave you isn’t quite right, but this one can be trusted — honest”?
- It diminishes the role of the Church in the proclamation of God’s Word. The Word of God is not meant to stand alone, outside of the Church. That is not what we mean by sola Scriptura. In addition to simply being read, it is to be explained and taught. Some of it is difficult. That is why we have pastors — preachers, teachers, shepherds — as well as congregations of mature believers: to disciple the young and immature. We are not simply to hand out Bibles and hope for the best; we are to preach it, teach it, and live it out among our neighbors. In the same vein, but far more importantly,
- It fails to recognize the role of the Holy Spirit in illuminating God’s Word. God chose the words he wanted us — all of us, simple and wise — to read. If God doesn’t intend for us to receive the word independent of teachers, it is even more true that he does not intend for us to receive it independent of himself. “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:14). No matter how simple the translation, none of us can understand it adequately unless we are filled with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit will make the Word understood, if we bring it accurately.
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1016
Share this post:
Posted in: Reruns
Link · 4 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
4 Comments:
#1 || 09·05·18··11:07 || Jeremy
I think I agree with you...BUT...
What about reading level? Should we consider that?
#2 || 09·05·18··13:23 || Nathan
Granting your main point, and also noting that it's impossible to produce a completely "literal" translation, I suppose the question turns on the degree of dynamic equivalence with which one is comfortable. Probably the natural watershed, simply because it's so well-known and popular, is the NIV. Is that too dynamic, or is it within the pale? That version seems to be where folks divide into camps.
Fwiw, one of my former profs at The Master's Seminary defends the NIV on the grounds that, despite its flaws, it's still God's Word and effectively promotes genuine and lasting spiritual growth.
#3 || 09·05·18··13:24 || David
Jeremy, sure, we can consider reading level, but only after accuracy.
Maybe I should have added a point between 1 and 2: It forgets the role of parents in explaining “big words” to children.
If we’re talking about adults, how difficult are the NKJV, NASB, and ESV? Seriously, now . . .
#4 || 09·05·18··13:44 || David
Nathan, I consider the NIV a product of serendipity. The translators took the wrong road but managed to arrive at the right destination (or very close to it) anyway. So I don’t worry about its use, but I steer its users toward the ESV instead.
As for your prof’s defense, I’d simply answer, what if those readers had a NASB or ESV instead? Would those not also effectively promote genuine and lasting spiritual growth? This is case of using the “baby with the bathwater” fallacy. I can throw out the NIV, and still find the “baby” of readability in cleaner water.