Translators of the Authorized Version and the other
great Bibles believed that the Scriptures unfold absolute truth which transcended
time and culture. Though the events and discourses of Scripture take place
in a long ago age, and in a civilization different from our own, by the
working of the Holy Spirit it speaks directly to the heart in all cultures
and times. That this is so is demonstrated by man's common union in the
fall of Adam (Romans 5:12) and his need of
the One Saviour (Acts 4:12). This two-fold
unity overrides any considerations of time and culture.
There may have been the need for certain normal adjustments, but there was never a question of translating the Bible any other way than the way God gave it. It was also acknowledged by translators that there were many deep things in the Bible which could not be translated simple enough for "modern man" to understand at first reading. And any such attempt would "translate" the meaning away! Thus, this idea of bringing the Bible "down to the people" had definite limits.
With the advent of Eugene A. Nida and his widely accepted "Dynamic Equivalence Theory" this has all changed. According to him the message and events of Scripture are "bound in their ancient time and culture." By merely using the "static" equivalence method of translation — that is, a word for word translation — the message of the Bible remains bound as far as modern man is concerned. But when the principles of "dynamic" equivalence are applied the message will naturally "leap out" at him into his own day and surroundings (or so Nida would like us to think).
Nida says that formerly there was a one-sided regard for the message, but today the emphasis should be on how the message is connected with its receptor (the certain people to whom the message is sent). Thus, the translator must consider more than just the differences between two languages; he must consider the cultural differences between the past and present. If (to use Nida's example) the people of Jacob's day understood his wrestling with the angel in a literal sense, the people of this day probably would not. Therefore, the translator should, to a certain extent, adapt and translate Genesis 32 "psychoanalytically or mythologically."
It becomes apparent that in dynamic equivalency a great deal of liberty can be taken with the events and discourses of Scripture so long as the translator "gets the message across."
Speaking in irony of this new method, missionary director Dan Truax writes:
"Admittedly, the readers in the jungles of Brazil would understand Isaiah 1:18 better with the "corn flour" substitution. The "corn flour translation" would read as follows:There is a limit as to how far the advocates of Dynamic Equivalency will go. Obviously, if the translation becomes too radical it will not be accepted. "The cultural adaptation must not totally enter the translation. At the same time, they are convinced that cultural adaptation is necessary." Therefore, they speak of the church as a "transformer of the truth" which completes the process begun by the translator. Thus if the translator cannot convey that Jacob wrestling with the angel was really a "psychological struggle," the church and preacher should make that supposedly divine truth known!"Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as 'corn flour.'"
But consider the dilemma of those translators when they came to certain Bible verses into which "corn flour" in the place of "snow" would not fit"— "He...slew a lion in a pit in a snowy [cornflour?] day" (1 Chronicles 11:22) or; "For as the rain cometh down and the snow [corn flour?] from heaven..." (Isaiah 55:10).
What happened to the old practice of translating the Bible as it was, and then explaining concepts that were strange to the readers?"
(from B.I.M.I. World).
Virtually all recent translations and the Bible Societies' work generally has been to a large extent influenced by Dynamic Equivalence. It has made Eugene Nida the most influential person in the field. The theory is grounded in theological liberalism. It strips the Bible of its doctrinal content. It dishonours God by implying He is unable to speak absolutely to all generations and cultures. And to quote the verdict that a literary critic gave the New International Version, it makes the Bible "formica flat."
That the New International Version was influenced by Dynamic Equivalence is demonstrated by the following statement in its preface:
For an excellent reference (to which I am indebted for the above), see The Future of the Bible by Jakob van Bruggen, Nelson Publishers.