Being a cerebral sort with a high reading level and general affinity for both grammar and poetry, I gravitate towards translations that use formal equivalence. Many in my family do the same, for similar reasons (we’re rather a nerdy family with quite a few high “T” people.)
When my dad switched from the formal equivalent NASB to the functional equivalent TNIV, it sent shockwaves through the family. We would never have guessed, Dad being the most “T” of us all.
But Dad had a compelling case to make for his switch. He had been convinced after reading Gordon Fee’s How to Read the Bible for all it’s worth that the vocabulary and syntax of formal equivalence is a stumbling block that stands in the way of clear evangelistic presentation of the gospel. Apparently, Fee argues that believers who use formal equivalence for their daily reading, study, and preaching–even if they paraphrase Scripture–will still tend to use the same awkward language style in their presentation of the gospel, alienating their a-religious audience in the process.
This seems a bit far-fetched to someone who has grown up speaking of the “Grace of God” and “fear of God”, who is used to thinking of some people or things as “Bless-ed”, and who understands the word “begotten.” But to the average a-religious individual, those figures or speech and ways of expressing oneself are as foreign as if someone had come to me speaking in the Thees and Thous and sinneths of the KJV. I can understand the language of the KJV, but it is certainly not my language of fluency–and the use of thees and thous and sinneths in a message would distract me from the message. In the same way, these ways of speaking which I find so familiar are unfamiliar and distracting to the a-religious.
It’s a compelling argument-probably the most compelling I’ve ever heard–for the use of functional equivalence. Certainly, I can see the utility of a translation using functional equivalence for a seeker’s study or for a new believer’s personal devotional life. The idea that we speak what we read also makes a case for why mature believers might want to read and memorize from translations that use functional equivalence.
I haven’t switched to functional equivalence myself, but hearing my dad’s argument has forced me to rethink my evaluation of other people’s translational choices.
I am inclined to ascribe laziness to users of functional equivalence. This argument reminds me that their motivation might actually be love.
I say scholarship leads me to use formal equivalence. This argument reminds me that my motivation may actually be pride.
My biggest fear with functional equivalence is lack of accuracy, and I think the NKJV, NASB, ESV help with that over the KJV. The devotional books I use with my son use all sorts of translations, and sometimes the verse isn’t even recognizable. I know some of the functional equivalence versions go farther afield than others in their interpretations.
A beloved former pastor used to say that when he first started preaching, he’d approach a passage with the question, “What can I say about this passage.” He later realized the question he should be asking is, “What does this passage say?” And he is a master at bringing out the meaning and application of the passage within its context. The kind of preaching that most discourages me is the kind that is “about” the passage rather than “from” the passage. Translations can be kind of the same way — some of the functional ones seem to interpret more what it says rather than just letting it say what it says.
I have to agree with Barbara. I worry too about accuracy in translation. I use a NKJV for myself and we use the NLT for our youth. The pastor at our church (my husband) uses the KJV but gives a clear understanding what the passage is saying. I really don’t like the Message used from the pulpit as it makes the Word seem so “watered down”…? Anyway, I also agree with your father that we might be loosing some folks with the KJV…Lots to think about when sharing the Word…