This philosophy of translation asks the question "why did
God say this?" At the end of the day, this is the
question Bible readers are asking and so it is no wonder
most English-speaking Bible readers choose a Dynamic
Equivalency translation. The translators read a
sentence in the source language (Hebrew for the Old
Testament and Greek for the New Testament) and they
translate it the way someone today would say that sentence.
Word order in the source and target languages are wildly
different. Words with theological significance (e.g.
atonement, justification, propitiation, sanctification, etc)
are interpreted rather than just translated.
Examples of this philosophy are the New International
Version (NIV), Today's New International Version (TNIV), New
Living Translation, Good News Bible (GNB), and many others.
On the other hand, the Literal Philosophy of translation asks the question
"what did God say?" Translations of this system take a
word in the source language and translate that word into the
target language. Word order in English is generally
what the word order was in the source. This makes for
a slightly more cumbersome read for a casual devotion, but
much more efficient and technical read for an in-depth study
than one would get with a dynamic equivalency translation.
The other cumbersome element to these translations is the
big words. Whereas the other philosophy would write
out the definition in their translation, this philosophy
would just write out the word and leave it up to you to do
the defining as you read and study.
Examples of this philosophy are the English Standard
Version (ESV), New American Standard (NASB), New Revised
Standard (NRSV), New King James (NKJV), and the King James
Version (KJV).
There is, no doubt, a huge difference between these two methods.
As I weigh in on the issue, please understand that I am
not legislating the use of one or the other. You
aren't a better Christian or a better person for using
one or the other. Both are valuable and in fact, I
have and use translations of both varieties on a regular
basis. Thus endeth all the caveats. Let us compare some major translations.
1 John 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.
(NASB) and He Himself is the propitiation for our
sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of
the whole world.
(NLT) He is the sacrifice for our sins. He takes away
not only our sins but the sins of all the world.
(KJV) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world.
(NCV) He is the way our sins are taken away, and not
only our sins but the sins of all people.
(ESV) He is the propitiation for our sins, and not
for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Three Benefits to Literal over Dynamic
Notice the major difference between the two
philosophies in this verse. Dynamic Equivalency
says "the atoning sacrifice" whereas Literal says
"Propitiation." I prefer Literal in general
throughout the Bible, but in this one verse Literal is
right and Dynamic is wrong. I don't want anyone to
think this is the case throughout the Bible, but it
certainly is the case here. Atonement does not
equal Propitiation. Propitiation means soothing of
God's anger, not atoning for sin. Literal makes
this verse about Jesus and the Father. Dynamic
Equivalence makes it about Jesus and me. And so
from a technical sense, I prefer Literal over Dynamic
Equivalence.
There is another reason I prefer Literal. It is
a discipleship reason... as people grow in the Faith,
they should be exposed to the vocabulary of the Faith.
Perhaps one of the reasons many disciples are not
well-rooted in the faith is because they use a Bible
translation that does all the interpreting for them.
I prefer a Bible that makes me work, makes me think, I
have to wrestle with all the questions of observation,
interpretation, and application.
Allow me to cite one final reason I prefer Literal.
As disciples begin their study of Scripture, they begin
cross-referencing and comparing one verse to another.
With the interpretive work already done in Dynamic
Equivalency Bibles, the end rendering of a verse uses
more common words and so in our cited verse above (1
John 2:2), one would begin looking up all verses using
the word "sacrifice" or "atone." The reader would
not know that this verse uses a different source word
than the other verses. In fact, this word is only
used twice in the whole New Testament (here and in 1
John 4:10).
In Summary
Notice my three reasons are related to the study of
God's Word. Study, however, is only one of three
ways to use God's Word. Study, Meditation, and
Memorization are three equally important ways to use
God's Word. Whereas Literal is stronger for study,
perhaps it is weaker for the other two uses. Am I
suggesting that studying in your NIV is a waste of time?
Certainly not.
