words and wording as they are found in the grammar, words are injected that express the thought of the original author in the language the critic is using!? The NIV is notorious for doing this.1 Thus dynamic equivalence is, for all practical purposes, a paraphrase. A paraphrase means to use several words to communicate the meaning of a single word. For example, the Greek word theopneustos (qeopneusto") in II Timothy 3:16 is rendered "is given by inspiration of God."

The translator is constantly engaged in choosing between each extreme. Such is extremely subjective and invariably one side of the see-saw is strongly tipped - usually (though not always) toward the "formal" end for such is the natural inclination of the scholar. Instead, he should seek to render a verbal equivalence between the two languages before him as much as possible and still make sense, while at the same time attempting to inject the emotion and life of the original meaning.

Dr. D.A. Waite, a most qualified linguist possessing two earned doctorates with majors in Latin and Greek and over 35 years of teaching experience in varied areas which include Hebrew as well as Bible Greek, maintains that it is at this very point the King James translators exhibited supior translation technique because they avoided the dynamic equivalence method, using instead "verbal" equivalence.2 "That is, the words from the Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as possible into the English".3 Dr. Waite further points out that the 1611 translators were most careful in their application of formal equivalence by carefully attending to the "forms" of the original wording. If the structure in the original language could be brought into the English, they so did. That is, if the word was a verb, they brought it over as a verb; they did not - as is common practice by most modern translators - change or transform it into a noun or some other part of speech.

Thus we see that the modern designations delineated in the preceding paragraphs can be and most often are just as subjective and non-scientific as the former terms and techniques. Actually, these textual scholars arrogate unto themselves (without any kind of ecclesiastical authorization) the authority to make free choice among the variant readings as Colwell attests: "in many cases solely on the basis of intrinsic probability. The editor chooses that reading which commends itself to him as fitting the context ... The weight of the manuscript is ignored. Its place in the manuscript tradition is not considered."4 (author's emphasis)

But apart from divine revelation, what living man really possesses such insight? As Pickering has observed - how can such rules be applied when neither the identity nor the circumstances of the originator of a given variant is known?5 Moreover, to base a final decision as to the true text solely upon internal considerations is unreasonable, unacceptable, and wrong.6 It ignores the massive

1 Jay P. Green, Sr. (ed.), Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. II (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund Pub., 1992), pp. 119-318. Dr. Green, a well known Greek and Hebrew scholar who has produced several Bible translations and a complete interlinear Bible in four volumes, has done the Church a great service in exposing the unfaithfulness of the New International Version (NIV). Not only has the NIV committee selected the corrupt critical Greek text as its New Testament base, Dr. Green reveals that the translators were not even faithful in their rendering of it as they have left around 5 percent of the Greek words altogether un-translated! "A slightly lesser percentage" of the original Hebrew O.T. has been left un-translated (p. 120). Thus tens of thousands of God breathed words are not in the NIV. Moreover, they have added over 100,000 words without so signifying to the reader by placing such words in italics as did the Authorized King James translators. All 100,000+ lack any Hebrew or Greek support whatever (pp. 120, 222-223). Both Waite and Green expose the NIV as being replete with free wheeling paraphrases rather than accurately rendering a translation. Nor are they alone in exposing this unfit translation; see also: The NIV Reconsidered by Radmacher & Hodges; (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva Pub., 1990) and Norman Ward, Perfected or Perverted, (Grand Rapids, MI: Which Bible Society).

2 D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, op. cit., pp. 89-132.

3 Ibid. pp. 90 and 98.

4 E.C. Colwell, "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program", Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, E.C. Colwell, (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill Pub., 1969), p. 154.

5 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 24.

6 Ibid., p. 25.

81


continued...