XIV. Timeless or Time-bound
Translators of the Authorised 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 past 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 (Rom. 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 simply enough for “modern man” to understand at first reading. Any such attempt would “translate away the meaning”! Therefore, 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, i.e. 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 and the differences between the past and present. If (to use one of 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 so long as the translator “gets the message across,” this method allows for a great deal of liberty to be taken with the events and discourses of Scripture
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:
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 “flour” in the place of "snow" would not fit.
He slew a lion in a pit in a corn flour day. (1 Chronicles 11:22).
For as the rain cometh down and the 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? (B.I.M.I. World).
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 began 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 supposed fact known!
Virtually all recent translations, and the work of the Bible Societies generally, have to a large extent been 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 concerning 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:
Because for most readers today the phrase “the LORD of hosts” and “God of hosts” have little meaning, this version renders them “The LORD Almighty and God Almighty” (p. ix).
Thus, they have confounded LORD of hosts with El Shaddai: (God Almighty)!
It is not only the underlying text that is at fault in the modern versions; the translation itself is seriously defective. Thankfully you'll not have to worry about either when you meditate in the pages of the King James Bible. For an excellent study (to whom I am indebted for the above), see The Future of the Bible by Jakob van Bruggen.
The Bible’s Final Warning
Tampering with the Bible is more than academic wrangling; it has eternal implications. The Bible warns against this many times (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Jer. 26:2). The Bible’s Final Warning is clear:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18, 19).
This warning in the first instance refers to the Book of Revelation. But, it is the Book of Revelation in its position as the Conclusion of Scripture. It is a warning for the entire Bible. This is evident, as warnings of this kind are not found at the end of any of the other sixty-five books of Scripture. That modern Bible translators do not take this warning seriously does not diminish its force and fulfilment.