Replies

At one time, my mind was open on this. In fact, my commitment to live under Christ's dominion was strongly influenced by reading through a copy of the "Good News for Modern Man" version of the New Testament. Since then I've read through the New English Bible (another interpretive dynamic type of rendering) and the New Schofield Bible, and consorted to a couple of comparative New Testament volumes with side-by-side columns of the NT in eaxh column, verse-by-verse. But 46 years of working this out has closed my mind to the liberties taken by the "dynamic" and paraphrastic authors who are mainly in this divisive for fame and money, most likely. It appears; on the surface; that the 'formal equivalency' of what ACTUALLY happened is much less important than the '"dynamic" equivalency' seen in comparing them.

I can't agree with you at all on this, because it is precisely the literal equivalency that gives the best rendering of truth as written at the behest of the Holy Spirit. The proponents of thedynamically (non)equivalent consider themselves completely free to interject their own opinions under the guise of "making it easier to read and understand." I just showed you in one verse where that has been done, and the practice is rife throughout all the non-literal renditions made for an illiteral public. Carrying this to the logical limit, the Bible would be written in a comic book form, or played out in a theater or movie stage.

Let me cut this short. I don't agree with you on any of your theories in this particular reply. What you are going to get in the NIV is the opinion of its translators under the color of giving you God's thoughts rather than giving you His Words. Literally, this version should be titled "God's Thoughts" -- not "God's Words."

I know you like to find fault with certain fallible religionists who present their "dynamic" religion as being a real and commendable one. I cannot understand why you don't apply the same kind of argumentation to this versionitis matter.