Dynamic Equivalence (Claim 10)

The graphic claims that the NIV's use of dynamic equivalence "changes meaning." Dynamic equivalence is a translation philosophy that renders thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word. Formal equivalence tries to mirror the source language syntax as closely as possible. Both are legitimate approaches. The NIV leans toward dynamic equivalence. The NET leans more toward formal equivalence while using dynamic choices where clarity requires it.

What the claim omits is that the KJV uses dynamic equivalence throughout. The most direct example is Romans 6:2, where the Greek reads mē genoito -- literally "may it not be!" There is no word for God anywhere in that phrase. The KJV renders it "God forbid!" That is a dynamic equivalence choice: the translators reached for an English idiom that captured the force of the Greek expression. The Greek idiom itself, literally translated, is equally forceful -- "May it never be!" or "Absolutely not!" -- but the KJV translators chose the English idiom. Every translation makes choices like this.

The real question is not whether dynamic choices are made -- they always are -- but whether those choices are documented and defensible. The NET's 60,000 translation notes make every significant decision visible. The reader can disagree with a specific rendering, look at the translator's reasoning, and weigh it against the alternatives. That is more accountability to the text, not less.

VII. The Proof Text and What It Actually Proves (Claim: Matthew 24:35)

The graphic quotes Matthew 24:35 to establish that God's word cannot be changed: "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away" (KJV). This is the graphic's theological anchor. It does not hold the weight placed on it.

Three problems.

First, the verse is about the certainty of what Jesus has declared, not about the textual fidelity of a 1611 English translation. Read in context: Jesus has just made sweeping predictions about events that would come upon the generation He was addressing, and Matthew 24:35 follows as His seal on those predictions -- His word on these matters is as permanent as the heavens themselves. He is not issuing a warrant for any translation. He is swearing on His own authority that what He has just said will come to pass. The verse establishes the reliability of His voice. It says nothing about which manuscripts should be trusted or which edition of an English Bible should be used.

Second, the verse does not do what the graphic needs it to do even on the surface. Matthew 24:35 appears in the NIV, the ESV, the NET, and every major modern translation with the same essential claim intact. If the verse proves that God's word cannot be changed, it proves it equally for the translations the graphic is attacking. The verse's own content undermines the argument.

Third, the doctrine of inerrancy -- which the verse is being used to support -- applies to the autographs, the original manuscripts. No one has them. Every text tradition, including the Textus Receptus, is a transmission of copies of copies of copies across fifteen to twenty centuries of hand-copying. The claim that God's preservation miracle landed specifically on the 1516 TR, and then specifically on the 1611 English rendering, and then specifically on the 1769 Oxford revision that most readers actually hold, requires evidence that cannot be produced -- because the KJV translators said in their own preface, in plain English, that they were fallible men doing their best work, and that no single translation should be treated as final.

They were right about themselves. The tradition that followed them was wrong about them.