Comments on: A critique of functional equivalence http://heissufficient.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/ Searching for wit and wisdom in a wilderness of words... Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:51:30 +0000 hourly 1 By: Peter Kirk http://heissufficient.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/comment-page-1/#comment-4422 Peter Kirk Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:28:57 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/#comment-4422 I based my information on the following on <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/october22/5.28.html?start=9" rel="nofollow">page 9 of the CT article</a>: <blockquote><i><b>Raymond C. Van Leeuwen</b> is professor of New Testament at Eastern College in St. Davids, Pennsylvania.</i></blockquote> If he is also an expert on the wisdom literature, then I suppose his opinion on Ecclesiastes is of equal value to that of each member of the NIV/TNIV team. I based my information on the following on page 9 of the CT article:

Raymond C. Van Leeuwen is professor of New Testament at Eastern College in St. Davids, Pennsylvania.

If he is also an expert on the wisdom literature, then I suppose his opinion on Ecclesiastes is of equal value to that of each member of the NIV/TNIV team.

]]> By: Mike Aubrey http://heissufficient.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/comment-page-1/#comment-4418 Mike Aubrey Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:24:34 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/#comment-4418 Peter, Van Leeuwen is actually an OT scholar as far as I know. He was one of the translators on Proverbs for the NLT. Peter, Van Leeuwen is actually an OT scholar as far as I know. He was one of the translators on Proverbs for the NLT.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/comment-page-1/#comment-125 ElShaddai Edwards Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:25:19 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/#comment-125 <strong>Colossians 3:9-10</strong> ... see my question on the first Leeuwen post if you get a chance. <strong>Galations 5:16-26</strong> ... isn't Leeuwen's argument simply that the ambiguity of "flesh" should be preserved so that readers can study the text without being led one way or another? Is there another translation of sarx that is ambiguous in the sense that it could be interpreted several ways? Maybe simply "human nature" instead of "sinful nature"? <strong>Ecclesiastes 1:14</strong> ... one of my former teachers once said that <i>hebel</i> could be translated in the sense of passing gas. A bit crude, but perhaps another facet of the metaphor. <strong>Romans 1:17-18</strong> ... indeed. My purpose wasn't to categorize any of the translations as FE, but simply to take Leeuwen's comments and see how some of the newer and most debated translations compared. Colossians 3:9-10 … see my question on the first Leeuwen post if you get a chance.

Galations 5:16-26 … isn’t Leeuwen’s argument simply that the ambiguity of “flesh” should be preserved so that readers can study the text without being led one way or another? Is there another translation of sarx that is ambiguous in the sense that it could be interpreted several ways? Maybe simply “human nature” instead of “sinful nature”?

Ecclesiastes 1:14 … one of my former teachers once said that hebel could be translated in the sense of passing gas. A bit crude, but perhaps another facet of the metaphor.

Romans 1:17-18 … indeed. My purpose wasn’t to categorize any of the translations as FE, but simply to take Leeuwen’s comments and see how some of the newer and most debated translations compared.

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://heissufficient.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/comment-page-1/#comment-124 Peter Kirk Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:57:55 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/a-critique-of-functional-equivalence/#comment-124 <i><b>Colossians 3:9-10</b> ... Both translations prevent readers from learning that the ‘new man’ is not us but Christ.</i> This is van Leeuwen's exegesis of these verses, but clearly not that of the TNIV or ESV translation teams, which between them include many of the world's top New Testament scholars. <i><b>Galations 5:16-26</b> ... Paul’s words here and elsewhere have often been misunderstood as meaning an opposition between the Spirit and our unspiritual ‘material’ body.</i> Indeed. And it seems that van Leeuwen wants to perpetuate this misunderstanding. <i><b>Ecclesiastes 1:14</b></i> Van Leeuwen, a New Testament scholar, seems remarkably confident that he understands how this Hebrew metaphor is being used better than the Old Testament scholars who translated the versions he criticises. <i><b>Romans 1:17-18</b></i> This simply shows that none of the versions you consider are FE translations. Colossians 3:9-10 … Both translations prevent readers from learning that the ‘new man’ is not us but Christ.

This is van Leeuwen’s exegesis of these verses, but clearly not that of the TNIV or ESV translation teams, which between them include many of the world’s top New Testament scholars.

Galations 5:16-26 … Paul’s words here and elsewhere have often been misunderstood as meaning an opposition between the Spirit and our unspiritual ‘material’ body.

Indeed. And it seems that van Leeuwen wants to perpetuate this misunderstanding.

Ecclesiastes 1:14

Van Leeuwen, a New Testament scholar, seems remarkably confident that he understands how this Hebrew metaphor is being used better than the Old Testament scholars who translated the versions he criticises.

Romans 1:17-18

This simply shows that none of the versions you consider are FE translations.

]]>