Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
$5.00
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 160 books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Before delving into the Bible translation debate, we need to get an overview of the differences that exist. There have been various debates concerning the proper family of biblical manuscripts and translation techniques that should be used to translate the Bible into other languages. Biblical translation has been employed since the first translations were made from the Hebrew Bible (Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic) into Greek (see Septuagint) and Aramaic (see Targums). Until the Late Middle Ages, the Western Church used the Latin Vulgate almost entirely, while the Eastern Church, centered in Constantinople, mostly used the Greek Byzantine text. Beginning in the 14th century, there have been increasing numbers of vernacular translations into various languages. With the development of modern printing techniques, these increased enormously.
The English King James Version or “Authorized Version,” published in 1611, has been one of the most debated English versions. Many supporters of the King James Version are disappointed with the departure from this translation to newer translations that use the critical text instead of the Byzantine text as the base text. There have also been debates regarding the benefits of formal translations over dynamic equivalence translations. Supporters of formal translation such as the King James Version criticize translations that use dynamic equivalence on the grounds that accuracy is compromised, since this technique tends to reword the text instead of translating it more literally in a word-for-word fashion. Additionally, these supporters are critical of translations using the critical text because they believe that biblical text has been deliberately deleted from the original autographs. Debates of this type involve theological concepts and translation techniques outlined in the process of textual criticism.
The First King James Version Debate
Following the execution of William Tyndale in 1536, there existed a complete translation of the New Testament from Greek into English for the first time and in several editions. From this point on, with the English Reformation in full swing, other publications of English translations began to appear, often with sponsorship from businessmen on the continent (e.g., Jacob van Meteren for the Coverdale Bible). The most notable of these was the Great Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the Geneva Bible.
The Great Bible was first published in 1539; the Great Bible was the only English Bible whose use was made compulsory in churches throughout England. The Geneva Bible (1557) became the “Bible of the Puritans” and made an enormous impression on English Bible translation, second only to Tyndale. Part of this was due to its issue as a small book, an octavo size; part due to the extensive commentary; and part due to the work and endorsement of John Calvin and Theodore Beza, two of the most important continental Christian theologians of the Reformation.
The politics of the time were such that there was a marked frustration between the clergy of the continent and the clergy of England; a formally accepted Great Bible was already used in the church, but the Geneva Bible was enormously popular. This sparked in the mind of both Elizabeth I and especially in Canterbury the concept of revising the Great Bible. The resulting Bishops’ Bible never superseded the popularity of the Geneva Bible—partly due to its enormous size, being even larger than the Great Bible.
Thus, there were marked problems for the English monarchy and Canterbury, both of which wanted a united Church of England. Each faction appeared to have its own version: the exiled Catholics had the Douay-Rheims Version, the Puritans had the Geneva Bible, and the official book for Canterbury was the Bishops’ Bible. Enter then James I, the first Scot to sit on the English throne.
King James I began his reign in the hope that he could reconcile the huge Puritan/Anglican divide — a divide that was as much political as it was religious. This attempt was embodied by the Hampton Court Conference (1604) during which a Puritan from Oxford noted the imperfections of the current Bible versions. The idea of a new translation appealed to King James. The translation task was delegated to the universities rather than to Canterbury to keep the translation as clean as possible.
Thus, it should be seen as no surprise that it took some time for the translation to be accepted by all. Further, it was never, at least on record, as promised by James I, royally proclaimed as the Bible of the Church of England.
King James Version Defenders
Some Christian fundamentalists believe that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible English speakers should use, due to the conclusion that corruptions are present in the other translations. Some who follow this belief have formed a King James Only movement. Similarly, some non-English speakers prefer translations based upon Textus Receptus, or “Received Text,” instead of the Alexandrian text edited by Wescott and Hort in 1881. Proponents of this belief system point to verses such as Ps. 12:6-7, Matt. 24:35, and others, claiming that “perfect preservation” was promised, often basing this reasoning on the fact that these verses utilize the plural form “words,” supposedly indicating that it is more than merely “the word” that will be preserved. The issue also extends to which edition is being used, particularly the Pure Cambridge Edition.
However, most biblical scholars believe that knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek has improved over the centuries. Coupled with advances in the fields of textual criticism, biblical archaeology, and linguistics, this has enabled the creation of more accurate translations, whichever texts are chosen as the basis.
A translator must determine how literal the translation should be in translating any ancient text. Translations may tend to be formal equivalents (e.g., literal), tend to be free translations (dynamic equivalence), or even be a paraphrase. In practice, translations can be placed on a spectrum along these points; the following subsections show how these differences affect translations of the Bible.
Formal Equivalence
A literal translation tries to remain as close to the original text as possible without adding the translators’ ideas and thoughts into the translation. Thus, the argument goes, the more literal the translation is, the less danger there is of corrupting the original message. This is, therefore, much more of a word-for-word view of translation. The only real problem with this form of translation is that some literal translators or committees do not know when their translation becomes nonsensical when rendered literally. The translator needs to make every effort to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows, and, if not, by any chance, the meaning is removed, a more interpretive choice is preferred.
The Updated American Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible (NASB1995 or NAS), King James Version (KJV), Modern Literal Version (MLV), American Standard Version (ASV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and their offshoots, including the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and English Standard Version (ESV) are – to differing degrees – examples of this kind of translation. For instance, most printings of actual literal translations include implied words but are not actually in the original source text since words must sometimes be added to have valid English grammar. Literal translations do insert words to complete the sense in the English text. Thus, even a formal equivalence translation has at least some modification of sentence structure and regard for contextual usage of words. However, this is not a case of interpretive translation. One of the most literal translations in English is the aptly named Young’s Literal Translation: in this version, John 3:16 reads: “For God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,” which is very stilted and ungrammatical in English, although maintaining more of the original tense and word order of the original Greek.
The Updated American Standard Version’s primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place.—Truth Matters! Our primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator.—Translating Truth!
The translation of God’s Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is a task unlike any other and should never be taken lightly. It carries with it the heaviest responsibility: the translator renders God’s thoughts into a modern language. The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is the best literal translation.
Dynamic Equivalence
A dynamic equivalence (free) translation tries to convey the thoughts and ideas of the source text clearly. A literal translation, it is argued, may obscure the original author’s intention. A free translator attempts to convey the subtleties of context and subtext in the work, so that the reader is presented with both a translation of the language and the context. The New Living Translation (NLT) is an example of a translation that uses dynamic equivalence. The New International Version (NIV) attempts to strike a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence. This is actually nonsense, as they are hiding or removing the Word of God from the reader. The readers need to receive what God said and then be the ones to determine what the biblical author meant by the words that he used instead of having the translator make those choices for them. This might be the milder form of the interpretive translation philosophy, but that does not negate the fact that you are getting what the translator thinks God meant over what God said in many places. So, in other words, they only alter and, in some cases, distort the Word of God 30 percent less of the time.
Functional Equivalence
A functional equivalence or thought-for-thought translation philosophy goes even further than dynamic equivalence and attempts to give the meaning of entire phrases, sentences, or even passages rather than giving the readers the words the Bible author used, allowing the reader to determine what the author meant by those words. Those who support interpretive philosophy like Bill Mounce say this is only a little less precise, arguing that functional equivalence can be a more accurate translation method for certain passages. They say that the modern reader cannot understand ancient idioms, so the translator simplifies it for them by giving them the interpretive reading. That is simply a technical way of saying that the Christian reader is just too lazy to study the Bible and too stupid to understand. If you look at the Preface to most interpretive translations of the Bible, they say just this, Christians are too lazy and stupid.
The interpretive advocates argue paraphrases are typically not intended for in-depth study but are instead intended to put the basic message of the Bible into a language that the typical reader could readily understand without a theological or linguistic background. The Message Bible is an example of this kind of translation. The Living Bible is a paraphrase in the sense of rewording an English translation rather than a translation using the functional equivalence method. If this is so, then stop calling them Bibles. They are nothing more than a mini commentary. Did you notice the subtle way they called the churchgoing Bible student lazy and stupid yet again? They say the typical reader could readily understand without a theological or linguistic background. You do not need a theological or linguistic background; rather, you simply need a Bible dictionary, like Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996). The Bible needs to be ambiguous, complex, and difficult to understand, requiring the reader to take time to understand, for it causes the reader to slow down and meditate, ponder, and study. It also weeds out those who do not really want to know.
The Contrast Between Formal and Dynamic Equivalence
Those who prefer formal equivalence believe that a literal translation is better since it is closer to the structure of the original; those who prefer dynamic equivalence suggest that a freer translation is better since it more clearly communicates the meaning of the original. Those who prefer formal equivalence also argue that the translators usually iron out some ambiguity of the original text; some of the interpretation work is already done.
Another key issue in translating the Bible is selecting the source text. The Bible far predates printing presses, so every book had to be copied by hand for many centuries. Every copy introduced the risk of error. Thus, a key step in performing a translation is to establish what the original text was, typically by comparing extant copies. This process is called textual criticism.
Textual criticism of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) centers on comparing the manuscript versions of the Masoretic text to early witnesses such as the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Samaritan Pentateuch Syriac texts, and the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, creating a challenge in handling so many different texts when performing these comparisons. The King James Version (or Authorized Version) was based on the Textus Receptus, an eclectic Greek text prepared by Erasmus based primarily on Byzantine text Greek manuscripts, which make up the majority of existing copies of the New Testament.
The majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort’s edition and the discovery o the New Testament papyri manuscripts discovered in the 20th century. There remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. These include the editors of the Hodges and Farstad text and the Robinson and Pierpoint text.
There have been a number of books and articles written about how and whether to indicate gender in translating the Bible. The topic is broad and not always discussed intensely. A number of recent Bible translations have taken a variety of steps to deal with current moves to prescribe changes related to gender marking in English; like the 2020 New American Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the New Century Version (NCV), Contemporary English Version (CEV) and Today’s New International Version (TNIV). In Jewish circles, the Jewish Publication Society’s translation the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (NJPS), is the basis for The Contemporary Torah: A Gender-Sensitive Adaptation of the JPS Translation (CJPS). Gender inclusivity is used in varying degrees by different translations.
Making arguments such as ‘the Bible authors wrote in a patriarchal time that influenced their writings, so to modernize the translation for the sake of those living in modern times causes no real harm, as this decreases the likelihood of offending the progressive, who might accept Christ.’ The only problem with this argument is the fact that you are rejecting the inspiration of Scripture and full inerrancy of Scripture. What any Bible author wrote was under inspiration, which gives us God’s thoughts, not mans. Therefore, you are, in essence, arguing that the Holy Spirit that moved the authors along to pen the thoughts of God was influenced by the patriarchal society of those time periods.
What these gender-neutral translators fail to understand is this: to deviate, in any way, from the pattern, or likeness of how God brought his Word into existence, merely opens the Bible up to a book that reflects the age and time of its readers. If we allow the Bible to be altered because the progressive woman’s movement feels offended by masculine language, it will not be long before the Bible gives way to the homosexual communities being offended by God’s Words in the book of Romans; so modern translations will then tame that language, so as to not cause offense. I am certain that we thought that we would never see the day of two men, or two women being married by priests, but that day has been upon us for some time now. In fact, the American government is debating whether to change the definition of marriage. Therefore, I would suggest that the liberal readers do not take my warning here as radicalism, but more as reality.
William Mounce VS Edward D. Andrews—Literal Translation Philosophy VS Interpretive Translation Philosophy
William D. Mounce is a scholar of New Testament Greek. William Mounce is the son of noted scholar Robert H. Mounce. He lives as a writer in Washougal, Washington. He is the President of BiblicalTraining, a non-profit organization offering educational resources for discipleship in the local church. Bill is the founder and President of BiblicalTraining.org, serves on the Committee for Bible Translation (which is responsible for the NIV translation of the Bible), he was the chief translator for the English Standard Version (ESV) and has written the best-selling biblical Greek textbook, Basics of Biblical Greek, and many other Greek resources. He blogs regularly on Greek and issues of spiritual growth. Mounce is a proponent for dynamic equivalent (interpretive) Bible translations.
Education: Ph.D. 1981, in New Testament. Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, Scotland. M.A. 1977, in Biblical Studies. Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. B.A. 1975, in Biblical Studies, minor in Greek. Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota; Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1971-74.
Mounce’s Article Below
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 170+ books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Below we are going to interact with one of Mounce’s internet articles on this subject matter, literal vs dynamic equivalent (interpretive) translation, specifically, his article Literal Translations and Paraphrases. Let us just say at the outset that Mounce likely believes what he is saying is true, but this simply does not make it so. I would also mention that I am the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) for Christian Publishing House. Our primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place. Our primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. First, Mounce begins his article with Romans 3:22. We will add one of our own from The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI).
I will do a back and forth with Bill Mounce and Edward Andrews being headers that give you what they are saying beneath. Also, at times, within square brackets [ … ] I will interject some brief thoughts into what Mounce is saying.
Taken from Bill Moune’s article Literal Translations and Paraphrases
Romans 3:22Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Bill Mounce
Without being simplistic, I have learned that translation is not translating words; it is translating meaning. To put it another way, translation is the process by which we reproduce the meaning of the text; translation does not replicate the form of the text.
Edward Andrews Response
What Mounce is really saying here is that he believes that the translator should interpret the meaning of the text and this is what is to be given to the Bible reader as a translation. Words carry the meaning of a text, so words are to be translated. When you interpret a verse, you want to express what the author meant by the words that he used. Mounce will want you to believe that it is an either-or. However, it is not as you will see.
Bill Mounce
To explain this, I need to talk about what I have learned about translation theory in general, and it will take four more posts to complete the topic. Most people say there are two basic approaches to translation.
Formal equivalence says that the purpose of translation is to adhere as closely as possible to the grammatical structures of the original language, altering the translation only when necessary to convey meaning. “Word-for-word” describes this approach.
The functional (dynamic) view of translation uses the words (along with other things like grammar and context) to discover the original meaning — the “authorial intent” — and then conveys the same meaning in the target language. [“Interpretive” describes this approach]
Translations do not fit neatly into one of these approaches or the other; they fit along a continuum with significant overlap. For example, the same translation can be formal in one verse and functional in the next. However, most people think in terms of these two basic approaches.
Edward Andrews
This is true to a degree. In dynamic equivalent (interpretive) translations though there is a tendency to go to the extreme. They want to interpret far more than is required. One basic thought to share at this point is, what if the interpretation of the translator is wrong, as some dynamic equivalent disagrees on interpretations because their translations interpret differently? Interpretation is the responsibility of the reader.
I have come to see that this is not accurate; there are at least five categories of translation theory. I will talk about the first two of them in this post.
Literal
Although I have already expressed my dislike of this term, I will use it here to make a point. If someone wants a “literal” translation, using the term “literal” in its improper sense, there is only one example of a “literal translation”: the interlinear.
There has become a pattern for those who favor a dynamic equivalent translation, to use an interlinear Bible, which is not a translation, and refers to it as a word for word translation because they know that this phrase is tied to translations like the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, and NASB. Below is an example from Duvall and Hays in the third edition of Grasping God’s Word (GGW).
Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays is a great book, so please take what is said with a grain of salt. However, what is quoted below is very misleading, and shows the length one will go to, to biasedly express their preference in translation philosophy. Within the table below are the egregious words from GGW.
Approaches to Translating God’s Word
The process of translating is more complicated than it appears. Some people think that all you have to do when making a translation is to define each word and string together all the individual word meanings. This assumes that the source language (in this case, Greek or Hebrew) and the receptor language (such as English) are exactly alike. If life could only be so easy! In fact, no two languages are exactly alike. For example, look at a verse chosen at random–from the story of Jesus healing a demon-possessed boy (Matt. 17:18). The word-for-word English rendition is written below a transliteration of the Greek:
Matthew 17:18 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI) 18 καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁἸησοῦς, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ δαιμόνιον· καὶ ἐθεραπεύθη ὁ παῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης.
Matthew 17:18 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
Should we conclude that the English line is the most accurate translation of Matthew 17:18 because it attempts a literal rendering of the verse, keeping also the word order? Is a translation better if it tries to match each word in the source language with a corresponding word in a receptor language? Could you even read an entire Bible “translated” in this way? – Duvall, J. Scott; Hays, J. Daniel (2012-05-01). Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Kindle Locations 494-507). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Because these authors, like Bill Mounce, favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy, they misrepresent the literal translation philosophy here, to the extent of being disingenuous. They give you, the reader, an interlinear (study tool) rendering of Matthew 17:18, and then refer or infer that it is a literal translation, which by association would include the ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and the UASV. Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays are being sly at best, let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.
ASV
NASB
UASV
18 And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour.
18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.
18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
RSV
ESV
CSB
18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.
18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.
18 Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that moment the boy was healed.
As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays tried to pawn off on us as a word-for-word translation, i.e., a literal translation.
Bill Mounce
An interlinear will list the Greek words in Greek word order, and under each Greek word there will be a gloss for its meaning. See Romans 3:22 in the graphic above.
Romans 3:22Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Bill Mounce
Is it understandable? Barely. Is it translation? No. As much as I would like the word “literal” to go away, I doubt it will. Will people start to use the word accurately? I hope so. But please, do not believe the marketing hype: there is no such thing as a “literal” translation. The very idea is linguistic nonsense.
Edward Andrews
Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that Mounce is moving the translation goal post like J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Mounce used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.
ASV
NASB
UASV
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction;
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
RSV
ESV
CSB
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
22 The righteousness of God is through faithin Jesus Christ to all who believe,since there is no distinction.
As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Mounce is trying to pawn off on us as a word-for-word literal translation, i.e., a literal translation.
Bible Study Tool
Interlinear Bible Study Tool: WH, UBS, NA, etc.
Literal Translations
Literal Bible Translations: KJV, YLT, ASV, RSV, NASB, UASV
It would seem that the Bible scholars who favor the interpretive dynamic equivalent translations are making a joint effort to redefine the spectrum of Bible translations, which will aid their cause of trying to move publishers away from producing literal Bible translations. We have gone from the conservative historical-grammatical interpretation (objective) to the liberal-moderate historical-critical method of interpretation (subjective), from the conservative goal in textual studies of getting back to the original words to the liberal-moderate getting back to the earliest text possible, and from conservative literal translation to the liberal-moderate interpretive translations.
Attribution: This article incorporates some text from the public domain: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but largely from Edward D. Andrews
Some Christian fundamentalists believe that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible English speakers should use, due to the conclusion that corruptions are present in the other translations. Some who follow this belief have formed a King James Only movement. Similarly, some non-English speakers prefer translations based upon Textus Receptus, or “Received Text,” instead of the Alexandrian text edited by Wescott and Hort in 1881. Proponents of this belief system point to verses such as Ps. 12:6-7, Matt. 24:35, and others, claiming that “perfect preservation” was promised, often basing this reasoning on the fact that these verses utilize the plural form “words,” supposedly indicating that it is more than merely “the word” that will be preserved. The issue also extends to which edition is being used, particularly the Pure Cambridge Edition.
The Updated American Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible (NASB1995 or NAS), King James Version (KJV), Modern Literal Version (MLV), American Standard Version (ASV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and their offshoots, including the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and English Standard Version (ESV) are – to differing degrees – examples of this kind of translation. For instance, most printings of actual literal translations include implied words but are not actually in the original source text since words must sometimes be added to have valid English grammar. Literal translations do insert words to complete the sense in the English text. Thus, even a formal equivalence translation has at least some modification of sentence structure and regard for contextual usage of words. However, this is not a case of interpretive translation. One of the most literal translations in English is the aptly named Young’s Literal Translation: in this version, John 3:16 reads: “For God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,” which is very stilted and ungrammatical in English, although maintaining more of the original tense and word order of the original Greek.
A functional equivalence or thought-for-thought translation philosophy goes even further than dynamic equivalence and attempts to give the meaning of entire phrases, sentences, or even passages rather than giving the readers the words the Bible author used, allowing the reader to determine what the author meant by those words. Those who support interpretive philosophy like Bill Mounce say this is only a little less precise, arguing that functional equivalence can be a more accurate translation method for certain passages. They say that the modern reader cannot understand ancient idioms, so the translator simplifies it for them by giving them the interpretive reading. That is simply a technical way of saying that the Christian reader is just too lazy to study the Bible and too stupid to understand. If you look at the Preface to most interpretive translations of the Bible, they say just this, Christians are too lazy and stupid.
Main Article: Theories and Methodologies of New Testament Textual Criticism
What any Bible author wrote was under inspiration, which gives us God’s thoughts, not mans. Therefore, you are, in essence, arguing that the Holy Spirit that moved the authors along to pen the thoughts of God was influenced by the patriarchal society of those time periods.
William D. Mounce is a scholar of New Testament Greek. William Mounce is the son of noted scholar Robert H. Mounce. He lives as a writer in Washougal, Washington. He is the President of BiblicalTraining, a non-profit organization offering educational resources for discipleship in the local church. Bill is the founder and President of BiblicalTraining.org, serves on the Committee for Bible Translation (which is responsible for the NIV translation of the Bible), he was the chief translator for the English Standard Version (ESV) and has written the best-selling biblical Greek textbook, Basics of Biblical Greek, and many other Greek resources. He blogs regularly on Greek and issues of spiritual growth. Mounce is a proponent for dynamic equivalent (interpretive) Bible translations.
Leave a Reply