[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by TimV

I got the information from Nida.

So let us have the quote from Eugene Nida of dynamic equivalence, not English history, fame. (I presume is your ref.) And his primary source. English can be 1600s or modernized.

If you go in Bible discussions a while you find that all sorts of PhD's peddle all sorts of nonsense misinformation when the goal is to attack the King James Bible.

(The one Bible that is a threat to their rarefied position, since the ploughman reads it at least as easily as the seminarian. And it comes with innate authority, hard for the language scholar/ professional exegete to accept.)

Sources - quotes, s'il vous plait.

Should be simple with your "through regimen of reading and study".

Ok, I'll simplify it for you.

"The Pilgrim fathers would not permit the King James Version to be carried in the Mayflower. They clung tenaciously to the Geneva Bible, published some sixty years before." - Message and Mission p. 155

No source given, we already saw the second sentence is simply false. Final answer: do you really think Nida has a source for the first ?

(btw, Not suprisingly the whole paragraph from Nida is a mess, including a vicous Jesuit-style ludicrous accusation-by-unnamed-proxy.)

Shalom,
Steven

PS
If you want a good albeit somewhat humourous example of PhD shenanigans, read the "strain at a gnat" thread and watch the bumbling bee Daniel Wallace.