Quote
Tom said:
I do not necessarily agree that it is a heart problem with those who use a dynamic equivalence over a more literal translation.
Actually, that is not what I wrote. Here are my exact words:


In short, the "difficulty" experienced by most is not that the language, grammar and/or style of the translation is archaic, stilted or too literal but rather the "difficulty" is a heart problem.


My comment was intended and directly toward those who are of the opinion that translations such as the KJV, ASV and for some even the NKJV and NASB are incomprehensible due to the "difficult" language used. What I find almost amusing is that these Formal Equivalent translations use proper English rather than slang or modern colloquialisms. And more often than not, their objections revolve around the "terminology" of those versions, e.g., "propitiation", "justification", "redemption" etc. I have to wonder if for them the dictionary is something they have relegated to the archives of ancient history as well?

Additionally, modern churches are to be found guilty of foisting these inferior "translations" upon the body of Christ as well by providing them in the pews, having cast off the more accurate and God-honoring translations which have been used for centuries. And, as I also mentioned Pastors/Elders have aggravated the situation by not preaching on the great doctrinal themes of the Bible which are based upon those comprehensive terms.

Sorry, but I find no acceptable excuse for using any translation that is based upon the Dynamic Equivalence translation of God's sacred Word. Ironically, with all the myriad translations that are on the shelves, never before in the history of the Church has there been such an embarrassing number of biblically illiterate professing Christians. Thus my conclusion that the problem is not one of language but of the heart.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]