The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Literal vrs. Dynamic

How does all that has been said here fit into using many different translations of the Bible in preparation for a sermon or lesson? Just because it is literal does not mean that it is going to make sense. And for the lay leader in particular, at least in my opinion, a dynamic equivalent translation can be of great help, and can be of great help even to the seasoned, ordained pastor.

I am not at all against literal translations; in fact, I refer to them first and foremost. But I have no problem opening up version that is not word for word literal and seeing how different translators chose to use words.

Or am I just totally off my rocker

I don't know that there's any real difference in the meaning, but the NASB is nearer to the original Greek.

Steve

Sure, read the NIV Bible and you will have your example, Tom!! The very principle of Dynamic Equivalence says that the individual words are not necessary to retain but rather the meaning of those words are to be conveyed. Thus words are sacrificed in translation for the alleged meaning. There are myriad examples in the NIV. Surely, you have seen them? But rather than me wasting my time doing YOUR work for you, I'll give you just one example; the word hilaskomi as it is found in the NIV and the ASV:

Rom 3:25 (NIV) "presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished"

Rom 3:25 (ASV) "whom God set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;"

------------------------------

1Jh 2:2 (NIV) "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

1 Jh 2:2 (ASV) "and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world."

-----------------------------

1Jh 4:10 (NIV) "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

1 Jh 4:10 (ASV) "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins."

-----------------------------

Heb 9:5 (NIV) "Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now."

Heb 9:5 (ASV) "and above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak severally."

As you can plainly see, the NIV translates hilaskomi inconsistently not to mention incorrectly. "Propitiation" rightly sets forth the dual nature of hilaskomi; 1) appeasement of wrath and 2) via removal of the offense. Further, the NIV considers "atonement cover" as a better rendering of hilasterion which has traditionally and correctly translated it as "mercy seat". The ramifications are a serious changing of the nature of Christ's atonement and thus salvation in general.

In His Grace,

The whole idea of dynamic equivalancy is flawed at the outset. Every discipline has it's language and that language has words with real meanings that communicate real ideas and concepts. Think about the sciences, economics, engineering, education, accounting, banking, mathematics. All these disciplines have a language and those people who desire to function within those disciplines learn the language and all the precise meanings of the terms so that they can function in their disciplines. Why should it be different for the Christian faith? Why do some believe that Christians, of all people, are unable to grasp the great truths of the faith without dumbing down the words? We have precise terms for precise doctrines, not to mention the Holy Spirit's help in illuminating these truths!

I believe that part of the reason we see so much disarray in the Church today is precisely because we have been lazy in learning and teaching doctrinal truths using the precise language we have been given. We could use another reformation to reclaim the language of the faith for the preservation of sound doctrine.

Part of the reason, IMHO, is that the doctrine of Total Depravity is diminished, disregarded or denied, either intellectually and/or practically; even among those who hold to the Reformed Faith. The dependence upon the work of the Holy Spirit is given lip-service, to one degree or another but in practice the burden upon communicating is taken up by the translators instead.

As I briefly commented in another reply here, the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ to build His church gave gifts to men for the edification of the saints and the proclaiming of the Gospel. They are to teach, i.e., "make disciples" of all nations. The translator is to faithfully adhere to the inspired text in the process of translating the Scriptures into the various languages. They have no warrant to interpret the text with the intent to make it "easier to read", as if this will make it possible for the reader to become converted in and of itself or facilitate a conversion. The real issue is not in the inability of a reader to comprehend the language of Scripture but in embracing it with the mind and heart. Men reject the Gospel message simply because they hate God and truth. That rejection is of that which they DO understand about God and truth.

In His Grace,

You are so right! This is the bottom line.

Pilgrim,

Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't the difference between these two phrases ("propitiation" and "sacrifice of atonement") miniscule when used in the context of the texts you privided?

My Vines says that "propitiation" is an equivilant for the OT use of "atonement." However, when "atonement" and "reconciliation" are confused (as the KJV did in Romans 5:11), then I can see your point. I also understand that "propitiation" and "atonement" can have different implications in the modern theological context, but unless we get unduly pedantic I don't see the problem with the NIV in this particular instance.

Henry,

I don't consider the difference between the words, "atonement" and "propitiation" to be unduly pedantic at all, but one of MAJOR importance. Propitiation deals with an aspect of atonement, specifically the appeasing of the wrath of God accomplished by the expiating of that which offended, i.e., sin. Atonement doesn't address these two aspects at all, but rather more generally of reconciliation.

It was once thought that the RSV was obviating this important issue by substituting propitiation with expiating, thus circumventing the issue of God's wrath being upon sinners. But the NIV goes far beyond the RSV and simply ignores both. I'm afraid that your "Vine's" is miserably mistaken. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, by Arndt and Gingrich, one of the most accepted standard lexicons of Koine Greek, defines hilasterion (propitiation) as:

that which expiates of propitiates, concr. a means of expiation, gift to procure expiation. . . . The LXX uses hilasterion of the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering on the day of atonement (Ex. 25:16ff) . . . So Heb 9:5, translated mercy-seat. . .

Another lexicon, albeit less used but still acknowledged as reliable is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer says:

hilaskomai: (to render propitious, appease) never met with; 1. to render propitious to one's self, to appease, conciliate to one's self . . . to become propitious, be placated or appeased . . . 2. by an Alexandrian usage, to expiate, make propitiation for . . .

hilasterion: relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory . . . a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation . . . 1. the well-known cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins were expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory,

I think I'll maintain that which I have come to understand concerning the meaning of hilaskomai, hilasterion from my reading of Scripture, my language studies and from what I have been taught by reliable professors over what the translators of the NIV consider to be a better "meaning" of the words which God inspired.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

You are perfectly right in your definition of "propitiation." But just for clarification, I thought I'd quote the reference from Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

Atonement (katallage, Strong's # 2643), translated "atonement" in the KJV of Rom. 5:11, signifies, not "atonement" but "reconciliation," as in the RV. See also Rom. 11:5, 2 Cor. 5:18-19.

So with the corresponding verb katallasso, see under RECONCILE. "Atonement" (The explanation of this English word as being "at-one-ment" is entirely fanciful) is frequently found in the OT. See, for instance, Leviticus, chap. 16 and 17. The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, "propitiation," 1 John 2:2, 4:10, and hilasterion, Rom. 3:25, Heb. 9:5, "mercy-seat," the covering of the ark of the covenant. These describe the means (in and through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His death on the cross by the shedding of Hid blood in His vicarious sacrifice for sin) by which God shows mercy to sinners. See PROPITIATION.

End quote. I guess it depends on your slant of the word "Atonement." The introduction to the dictionary actually says something specific about this word, but I'll have to look it up and post it later.

Henry,

Thanks for the quote from Vine's . . .. And, it really goes the distance in making my point and to bring the earned disparagement upon the NIV. There are other inspired words for "atonement", "sacrifice", "reconcilation", etc. which the Spirit chose to use in the biblical record. Hilaskomai, hilasterion, and cognates are not them. The translators had no warrant to substitute the actual meaning of these words for those which they deemed "more beneficial to the understanding of the Bible". In so many instances, words have their "mates" in both testaments and upon which true doctrine is to be formulated and believed, even unto salvation.

So, in the vernacular I say to those who have taken to themselves the responsibility of translation, "Stop messing around with God's Word!! You do not have the authority nor ability to do so."

Here's the quote from the introduction. By the way, my edition of Vine's is from 1952, long before NIV.

'Words are not static things. They change meanings with passage of time. Many words used in the KJV no longer possess in current English the meanings they ha in 1611. We do not now use "prevent" in the sense of "precede," or "carriage" in the sense of "baggage." These changes of meaning may be infereed from the content, but there are other changes which might not be so readily noticed. An important example is the word "atonement," one of the great technical terms of theology. When this word retained its etymological sense of "at-one-ment," it was an appropriate rendering for Gk. katallage, and is so used in the KJV of Rom. 5:11. But "atonement" has long ceased to be an English equivilent of "reconcilication," and its continued use leads to confusion of thought on a theme of utmost importance. A study of the articles on PROPITIATE, RANSOM, and RECONCILE in this work will greatly clarify the reader's understanding of the biblical resentation of what is commonly called "the doctrine of the atonement."'

End quote. (I could use the quote tags, but I hate the way they mess up formatting, i.e. no line breaks.) It seems that Mr. Vine sees the word "atonement" as making an etymological shift from "reconciliation" to more at "propitiation" in the English language. Perhaps the translators of the NIV saw "propitiation" and "sacrifice of atonement" as being complete synonyms...? Seems plausable.

By the way, I'm not defending the dynamic equivilent method of translation at all. I'm just saying that in this case it could be an example of genuine etymological assumption.

Yes, I understand what you are trying to suggest. But the problem in this particular case is that I totally disagree with Vine and his reasoning concerning "atonement". Perhaps I am too simply-minded, but when I see that there are many different words, etymologically unrelated, which the Spirit has used in His Word, my understanding of verbal plenary inspiration forces me to see and accept those differences; not blur the lines which separate them. There was and is a good reason why the Spirit wrote katallage and not hilasko and vice versa. Once again, I would refer you back to the two quotes I supplied from the two most notable, widely accepted and used Greek Lexicons re: hilaskomai/hilasterion. It is that specific and peculiar meaning of those words which I believe must be retained and clearly understood, else a fundamental understanding of God, His relation to sin/sinners and Christ's atonement are lost. Contemporarily, this has been done to a large degree already and the results have been disastrous. Blurring and/or eliminating the wrath of God and the necessity of Him being appeased via the expiation of the sin/sin nature which offends Him and because of which mankind is destined to eternal damnation, you end up with such teachings as, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." Or, "God loves you just the way you are." Or, "All you need to do is say this little prayer asking Jesus to come into your heart and you will be saved.", etc., ad nauseam.

Frankly, I love that word propitiation and what it really means. And evidently God thought we should know about it as He chose to write that Jesus Christ IS the propitiation three times (not including all the cognates and derivatives of the root word). Yes, I get passionate about the passion of Christ because 1) It is what cut deep into my heart and soul when I stood before Him and confessed my sins as I clutched His garment. 2) It is one of the fundamental doctrines of the faith.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

You're probably right. But because I'm quite enjoying this exchange, I thought it'd be interesting to note that everywhere in the NIV where "sacrifice of atonement" shows up, they have a text note explaining the word somewhat. For an example, in Rom. 3:25, the note reads,

"Or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin."

The other notes say the same thing. Seems to me that's a pretty succint definition of propitiation for the masses. Of course, there's a lot more that goes with that word, but...

Also, per the modern use of propitiation, I looked it up in Websters:

propitiation 1: The act of propitiating 2:something that propitiates; specif: an atoneing sacrifice

propitiatory 1:intedned to propitiate: EXPIATORY 2: of or relating to propitiation.


Again, you're likely right, but I just thought these few things were worth note.

Oh, I too am enjoying this particular discussion; far more than some others currently going on!

With this additional comment of yours, once again I thank you for furthering my contention that the translations based upon a Dynamic Equivalence method of translation, and the popular "golden calf" of the masses, the NIV in particular are guilty of taking upon themselves the authority of the Holy Spirit when they choose to ignore the inspired words of holy writ. The fact that the translators of the NIV, one of which was my Greek prof at WTS, chose to include a footnote for hilasterion, which admittedly is accurate as far as a brief definition goes, shows their audacity to interpret the text rather than translate it. Further, we are all told, at least some of us more fortunate souls, that if we use a study Bible, we are to always remember that the "footnotes" are not inspired, but only the comments of the author(s). Thus, I would have to assume, that those who use the NIV would disregard the footnote should a controversy arise over the word used, re: Rom 3:25 and hilasterion.

Again, I must insist that the fundamental goal of such translators is grounded in the belief of "Solo Scriptura", i.e., that all a person needs is a Bible and the Holy Spirit to fully understand Scripture; with this one qualification: that the translation be such that a child of grammar school age and/or mentality can read it. Such a notion is unbiblical and which can be shown to be fallacious from even one text:

Acts 8:29-31 (ASV) "And the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him."

The presupposition which the theory of Dynamic Equivalence is grounded obviates God's design for the proclamation of the Gospel and the edification of the saints. (cf. Eph 4:8-15) It is essential that we understand that individual believers are part of the Body of Christ, within which the various gifts of the Spirit are given and not to all alike. (cf. 1Cor 12:4ff) The necessity of pastor/teachers is universal and not unique to the church as can be seen here:

Nehemiah 8:8 (ASV) "And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading."

Therefore, Dynamic Equivalence is not the answer but rather the dynamic working of the Spirit through men given to the church to teach the Scriptures which are faithfully translated.

In His Grace,

Agreed.