Customer Reviews

The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

After reading this exceptional and important work and reading some of the "reviews" I felt compelled to write my own review. I hope this helps.

Since the middle of the twentieth century there has been an explosion of translations of the Bible into English. Between 1952 and 1990 there were twenty-seven English versions of the entire Bible. Several have been added to this number since 1990. Many are excited about this ever-expanding number; others are contending that there may be some negative unintended consequences due to this development.

Most discussions and debates about the "best" translation of the Bible into modern English are rooted in misconceptions about the most reliable original manuscripts, varying philosophies of language, and various translation philosophies. The two main camps are the literal word-for-word, or the dynamic equalevant thought-for-thought.

Dr. Leland Ryken, Professor of English at Wheaton College, brings a unique and discerning perspective to this discussion. Due to his expertise as a Biblical literary critic, Ryken is highly qualified to enter this arena. He has written several helpful books that apply the discipline of literary analysis to the Scriptures. In this current book, Ryken places the discussion of the best English version of the Bible translation within a broader context. The majority of books written over the past few decades that examine English Bibles either take a historical approach by examining the development of the numerous versions, or a linguistic comparison of particular words, phrases or ideas from the original languages into English. Ryken poses different questions and examines the discussion from a broader cultural and literary perspective while providing exceptionally perceptive analysis.

One of the many keen observations within his work, Ryken explores the shift from the more literal KJV, RSV and NASB to the more parphasistic NIV and NLT. He questions the philosophy behind this shift and highlights the errors inherent with diverse translating philosophies. By placing questions of "thought" translations in a philosophical context (how does one have thoughts without words?) and literary context (are some ways of expressing an idea not better than others?), Ryken makes a tremendous contribution to an extremely important issue. Ryken offers persuasive evidence that there is a substantial difference between a translation of the Bible and an interpretation of the Bible.

The book is not a tirade against the KJV for being archaic English or the NIV for being too tolerant by adding words where they are absent, or deleting words where they are present in the original. Ryken is laying the groundwork for dealing with the serious matter of having the best English Bible. Specifically regarding the KJV, Ryken praises the literary quality style of the KJV, while recognizing that it "has become culturally obsolete with its archaic language and deficient scholarship."

Three sections are dedicated to refuting common fallacies of translation. He also does a marvelous job of establishing the criteria of what would be the best English Bible. Nearly half of the book is dedicated to exposing and refuting faulty ideas about the Bible in English and the other half provides many helpful suggestions toward solving these problems.

Ryken's book is a much-needed corrective to misguided translation theories that have contributed to a debasing, rather than an elevating, of the English language. Anyone with a college level education or someone well read and familiar with these issues would benefit from this book.

This is a great book and enjoyable to read. Professor Ryken is very informed and has put a lot of thought and analysis into this book. Every student of the Bible should read this book.

Other commentators have covered the high points. Dr. Ryken does a great job of showing the value of paraphrases as a commentary, but not as a translation, certainly not a primary shource. The book is also excellent at explaining the history of Bible as quality literature, certainly above the din of paraphrases such as The Message. (One reader said about the Message, " It's great, if you don't mind Jesus sounding like a used car salesman."!!)

I read almost every major translation and have arrived at many of the same conclusions that Dr. Ryken does. However, he could have given more positive press to the NKJV, since it also has many of the literary qualities found in the translation he praised (the ESV). The fact that the NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus is a plus, not minus, in my book. Also, some of the complaints he had about other translations could also be made about the ESV; it also tends to be interpretive in places. For example Romans 3:25, "to be received through faith" inserts the words, "to be received," forcing the interpretation of the passage. Dr, Ryken also made a passing comment slighting the accuracy in translation in the NKJV, yet in many comparisons I find the NKJV to be equivalent or superior to the ESV. (The fact that the NKJV at times uses various words to translate one Greek work is a stylistic issue; again, the ESV does the same thing with the Greek word "anthropos.")

I wish some attention had been given to the Holman Christian Standard Bible, a new Bible, which is very readable and yet mostly literal. I would admit, however, that the ESV has more literary quality and elegance than the HCSB. Still, the HCSB has some features that the ESV lacks, such as more even-handed alternate readings, more respect for the Byzantine renderings, and some clearer word choices, eg. "sensible" HCSB vs. "sober-minded" ESV. The HCSB also uses normal English sentence structure.

I have learned a lot from this book. I wish it wasn't so much a selling tool for the ESV as an even-handed appraisal of style, literary issues, historical contexts of the original manuscripts, etc. Using Dr.Ryken's criteria, the NKJV and the ESV should both receive high marks. I like the ESV, but even if you aren't enamored by the ESV you can still learn a lot from this book.

The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken is one of the best books I have ever read. It has left an indelible impression on my spiritual life and my view of scripture. Mr. Ryken's arguments and presentation of why we need to use word-for-word translations as oppossed to though-for-thought translations are solid. His examples are clear and fair although I would loved many more of them. Mr. Ryken does an amazing job of elevating scripture(God's Word/Words) to the level they need to be at in our hearts and minds. This book is not a casual read so be prepared to do some serious thinking about an issue that deserves the utmost attention and reverence.

If you are serious about God's word then you must read this book. I don't think I can ever fully trust a dynamic(functional)-equivilent translation ever again. I am not saying I won't use one at some point but after reading this book I will always feel suspicious about whether or not what I am reading is a translation or interpretation. I wanted to be fair so after reading this book I purchased and began to read The Challenge In Bible Tranlsation(ISBN: 0310246857). After reading the arguments/defense that they presented regarding dynamic equivilence translations I am more convinced than ever that the only responsible and sure way to ensure that you are getting what the underlying text actually says as close as possible is to use Formal-Equivilent translations.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book and The Challenge In Bible Tranlsation (ISBN: 0310246857) to those that are serious about studying the bible. I am sure that you will never be the same, I know I never will be.

Professor Ryken provides a different perspective on the Bible Translations issue-that of the literary scholar. Dr. Ryken is not a theologian or textual critic, but a comparative literature scholar, and this voice has been missing from the Bible Versions debate over the years.

The unique perspective that he brings is that of preserving the original intent and style of the author across translation. The modern dynamic translations have often had as their goal to state the Bible in modern language. The fact is, Dr. Ryken points out, the Bible is an ancient book. The authors used literary devices-imagery, poetry, meter, parallelism, etc which are part and parcel of the message. Many Biblical truths are very obviously meant to be grappled with by the reader, as God's truth penetrates the heart. The classic examples that Ryken speaks of are Homer and Shakespeare. The literary world would cry loudly if we passed a modern vernacular version of The Odyssey or Hamlet as the true words of Homer or Shakespeare. Yet we take ancient timeless truth and divorce it from its original form in order to pitch it to an American seventh grade reading level. We do so at the peril of the text itself, and Ryken establishes that fact well.

The one criticism I would have of the book (and thus four stars) is not that Ryken sat on the committee that produced the English Standard Version, but that this book at times reads a bit like an infommercial for that very fine translation. I do think Ryken probably limited the objectivity of his work in continually holding the ESV as the new standard.

Dr. Leland Ryken is to be hailed for his work on English translations of the Bible. He does a masterful job of presenting strong arguments for an essentially literal transaltion (ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV) versus a dynamic equivalent transation (NIV, NLT, the Message, TNIV, NRSV, CEV, TEV).

For years I have read and studied from the NIV but always have my doubts and suspisions about the NIV. Having taken New Testament Greek I was aware of some of the problems I had personally found in the NIV. When the New Living Translation (NLT) came out in 1996, I bought it and instantly rejected it. It was simply too free in its translation, too "dumbed" down for me, and simply ignored much of the Greek text. After reading Dr. Ryken's book, I have found my ammunition for defense of the essentially literal translations.

I now enjoy teaching and preaching from the RSV, NKJV, and the NASB. I would encourage you to pray that the evangelical church hears Dr. Ryken's words of wisdom and returns to a solid literal translation in the heritage of the King James Version.

I've read worse books, but I've rarely read a book so exasperating. Here is my one sentence summary: "Behold, thou stupid scoundrel, if thou wouldst partake of the Holy Scripture, pray thee donst countervail the text as handed down to us in the Elizabethan English spoken in the Heavens, unless betimes thou wilst succor the churl with the ESV (at bookstores now)."

In other words, this book is derogatory, misguided, and biased toward the archaic. It is also illogical, laughably inconsistent, and one-sided. However, for those deeply interested in this topic, I do recommend reading it. Why? It will help you to understand the thinking and arguments of the KJV Only crowd, that apparently is morphing to the ESV Only crowd.

To my complaints:
Misguided. The author never successfully breaks away from an underlying attitude that the Bible was effectively written by King James in English. Nor does he seem to have a grasp on the basics of translation. For example, not even the most literal of translations is "word for word." Try translating an everyday Spanish phrase word for word: "¿Como se llama?" becomes "How yourself call?" Even accounting for syntax it is still an unwieldy "How do you call yourself?" We could improve the English grammar to "What do you call yourself?" but native English speakers do not normally use this phrase. Obviously, the correct translation is "What is your name?" The Greek to English translation challenge is similar:

Luke 8:30
"What to you is the name?" [literal]
"What is thy name?" [KJV]
"What is your name?" [NIV]

I want to be clear: he does give lip service to these basic ideas, but then proceeds to development his argument as if they were not fundamental concepts.

Illogical. The author groups all translations into two camps: literal and virtual paraphrases. Various terms are used for these two types (word for word, essentially literal, dynamic equivalence, etc.) but no allowance is made for the fact that there is a spectrum of translations from the actually literal (and effectively unreadable) such as an Interlinear Bible, to an admitted paraphrase, such as The Living Bible or The Message. The two questions that logically arise are, "Is there an ideal level of equivalence in translation?" and "Is paraphrasing to be avoided?" In other words, the goal is a readable English version of the Word that does not stray from its original meaning, given that most of us won't typically be reading the texts in the original languages, even with the actual word for word English included. The author avoids these questions, and simply places the ideal label on a "essentially literal" strategy, without ever clearly defining what that means (except by example: the oft-quoted ESV).

Inconsistent.
At the end of a section on literary quality, the author states, "it is as simple as that," meaning that the poetry will be captured if you just translate the words. Absurd. Then, the entire second half of the book is devoted to methods for capturing the various aspects poetry, all the while ignoring the actual word for word translation!

Similarly, in trying to capture the "world" of the text, the apparent goal is to transfer the reader to England in the time of Shakespeare rather than the Holy Land of Jesus or the Patriarch's day.

However, by far, the most exasperating aspect of the book is the numerous examples given by the author, which contradict the very point he is making. It is not clear if he assumes the reader is a "churl" and won't check, or if he just doesn't understand the subject at all. My favorite example is from Psalm 88:18, which literally says, "my acquaintances - darkness." This could be interpreted in parallel to the earlier part of the verse as "my acquaintances are in darkness" [NASB], or in contrast "darkness is my only friend" [HCSB]. The "preferred" version "my companions have become darkness" [ESB], doesn't even make any sense, let alone being a poor example of fidelity to the text, the subject of the chapter!

As for my other charges: Biased and one-sided? Just go out and by the ESV and don't bother with the book length promotion. Derogatory? Are dynamic equivalence promoters really "antinomian?" A literal translation is "one who rejects the socially established morality." I suspect he meant a more dynamic translation: "dopes."

And thus we now have some insight into how this issue is approached by those with a more archaic mindset. But what should be the modern approach to seeking the best possible translation? First of all, is there a negative side to having a wide array of translations? How do we deal with the changing nature of current English? What impact do we allow to our modern reading, the past interpretations that have had significant impact on the history of our language? The author did raise all these questions, but unfortunately did not adequately answer them.

My conclusion is that the primary problem with developing a standard English translation is the limited understanding of language among native English speakers. We've had our own tongue as the world-wide lingua franca for so long, we expect it must be that way in heaven, and don't bother to study language in school.

One final question: how did the publishers get so many respected Christian leaders to endorse this book? "Most important read of the millennium?" "Brilliantly convincing?" This is, actually, disturbing. In the case of the on-line Amazon evaluators, I assume that the bias toward five stars is due to the fact that they didn't actually read the book (including many who didn't bother to finish it, and then reward it with one star). But it would also appear, from reading the endorsements, that the recommendations were not based upon a critical reading of the material presented, but preconceived notions of which Bible is superior!

Do read the book, but then direct your exasperation-sparked energy toward a search for a more rational exposition of this important topic.

This book is marvelously written to investigate how most modern day translations fail to match the criteria for the literary standards of the Bible. The Bible has many different literary forms, and when translators "spell it out" they are promoting antii-intellectualism among the pews (of which there is much).

It is very important that laymen learn the proper rules of hermeneutics, and learn how to interpret the Word of God, however, their interpretations should still be subject to the church. What is sad is that modern Bible readers do not get the full appeal of the original text. All the literary forms that the Bible uses are all obscured into prose. This is not good English usage.

Ryken does not defend the NASB as much as he does the ESV, because he prefers "essentially-literal" over more of a "woodenness" of which the NASB has (I love the NASB, by the way). Bible translation issues, as well as linguistics, are a few of my interests, and I defend essentially-literal to a more literal theory of translation.

There ARE good things to some modern translations, but many readers DO fundamentally need more than one translation to compare the different translations. Ryken doesn't really address the feminist issues of translations very much. He may discuss it a little, but his main concern is the literary nature of the Bible. The ESV included him as a literary advisor for their translation, and they made a very good choice. He offers a good critique of Eugene Nida's, the one who popularized dynamic equivalency.

The only real qualm I have with the book is tha it did tend to get redundant in places. When critiquing the modern translations, he tended to say the same thing about the different figures of speach that he said about other figures of speach. But, this did not devalue this fine work.

The author, Professor of English at Wheaton College, analyzes dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translations which currently dominate the Bible market and concludes that most of the new translations represent a dumbing-down and loss of richness from the original language behind the text. (Among the more popular dynamic-equivalence translations are the NIV, CEV, NLT, NEB, and The Message.)

This is not the typical soapbox-mounted ax-grinding presentation of a zealot who is out to champion one particular translation at the expense of all others. Rather, it is the fairly reasoned and carefully presented work of a man who is well-schooled in the field of literature and writing.

While upholding the inspiration and inerrancy of the Biblical text, the author recognizes that stylistically the text shares attributes in common with other great works of literature. Why then, if scholars would not dare pass off a wholesale modification of Shakespeare as a legitimate rendering of his work, is this routinely deemed to be acceptible by popular thought-for-thought translations of the Word of God?

The author identifies important attributes of literature and illustrates how dynamic translations embrace principles which are inherently opposed to preserving these attributes. The result is predictable: popular Bible versions which are poorer as measured by standards of both accuracy and literary quality. This is not just theory-Leland offers many specific examples taken from various thought-for-thought translations to prove his point.

For this reviewer, the most telling sections of the book were parts two and three. Part two, subtitled "Common Fallacies of Translation" examines the assumptions which dynamic-equivalence translations make in order to justify their movement away from the actual words of the underlying text. The author shows that these assumptions are at best highly questionable and at worse contribute to the self-fulfilling demise of Bible understanding by modern readership. Part three, subtitled "Theological, Ethical, and Hermeneutical Issues" will be of great interest to preachers and teachers of God's word. Although Leland applauds the well-meaning intentions of the dynamic-equivalence translators, he notes that these translations take great liberties with the meaning of the text. Leland shows that although dynamic-equivalence translators profess a belief in verbal inspiration (the very words in the original are those God intended), the outcome of their work undermines this foundational principle. In their readiness to move away from the actual words of the original, they unavoidably divorce the text from the author's intended meaning-thereby distorting the word of God and rendering verbal inspiration of little consequence in their work.

Probably the most troubling aspect of dynamic-equivalence translations is that they muddy the water by combining interpretation with translation in ways that a reader of these translations can never know when ambiguity in the original text has been arbitrarily settled by the translation committee in a way which completely hides other valid interpretive options from the reader. In short, dynamic-equivalence translations place an additional layer of interpretation between the reader and the actual Word of God.

These translations are to be avoided, not merely because they are new or novel, but because they take liberties with the Word of God which reflect a cavalier view of verbal inspiration and demean the richness of the underlying text. Leland argues that the loss is not just one of precision, but also of literary quality thereby contributing to a loss of appreciation for this magnificent communication of God to man.

We believe Leland's even-handed analysis and careful presentation of the subject is unanswerable, exposing these translations for what they are: inadequate representations--in some cases even distortions--of God's Holy Word. By reading this book, you will obtain a much clearer understanding of why these translations should be avoided by those who are serious about learning and teaching God's Word.

Here's an effective way to win an argument: (1) Create an unrealistic caricature of your opponent; (2) convince people that your caricature is the real deal; (3) rail eloquently against your caricatured opponent.

If this method makes you uncomfortable, then you probably won't care for Leland Ryken's The Word of God in English. Ryken believes the dynamic equivalence or "phrase-for-phrase" theory of translation, which seeks to translate the total meaning of a text (as nearly as possible) so it has the same impact on contemporary readers that it had on its original audience, has done serious damage to the English Bible. Ryken promises to uncover the fallacies behind dynamic equivalence, exposing it for the fraud it surely must be.

But there are several problems. First, Ryken's no translation expert. He's a respected professor of English at Wheaton College. But he's neither translator nor biblical scholar.

Second, Ryken persistently misrepresents dynamic equivalence (DE). He tries to convince his readers that translators practicing DE care nothing for the words of the original and are satisfied merely to capture the "basic idea" of the text as they see it. Nothing could be further from reality.

Third, Ryken uses the term "dynamic equivalence" too broadly. He paints the NIV, TNIV, GNT, NLT, CEV and other translations with the same indiscriminating brush. Were he a translator he could see for himself how literal the NIV and TNIV can be--these translations actually fall somewhere between dynamic and formal equivalence.

In a chapter titled "Lessons from Literature," Ryken compares the work of translation to how we treat Shakespeare. He writes, "If we were to apply the principles of dynamic equivalence to a text by Dickens or Shakespeare, we would end up with two entirely different texts... This is a totally untenable situation." But this is a totally untenable argument, comparing apples to oranges! Shakespeare and Dickens wrote English literature. The Bible consists of ancient documents written in foreign languages that behave very differently from English. This is hardly a valid analogy.

His next chapter, "Lessons from the History of Translation," gives a one-sided perspective, implying that formal equivalence was the only game in town for centuries. Au contraire. One of the first and most significant Bibles, the Wycliffe Bible, was carefully revised by Wycliffe's secretary John Purvey because Purvey felt it wasn't good enough to translate "after the word." You had to translate "after the sentence." Tyndale translated for the simple ploughboy, and even the KJV is replete with dynamic idioms like "God forbid" that have no exact verbal equivalent in the original.

Ryken's next few chapters address several fallacies he believes plague DE Bibles. But he's hardly fair. No respectable DE translator would ever suggest, for example, that "the Bible is a uniformly simple" or a "modern" book.

Ryken rejects the dictum that we should translate meaning rather than words, accusing DE translators of arbitrarily choosing their own words and practicing wanton disregard for the words of the original texts. He mistakenly thinks DE takes one extreme, not realizing that he's taken another--the naïve assumption that words are the sole component of meaning. In reality, many factors contribute to meaning--yes, words; but also context, sentence structure, genre, connotation, etc.

Ironically, some of the passages Ryken cites (there are many) work against his point. For example, he compares different translations of 2 Timothy 3:16, citing approvingly the ESV's rendering over the NIV and TNIV. But the NIV and TNIV are even more literal than the ESV in this case. Compare:

"All Scripture [is] God-breathed." (a strict, literal translation)
"All Scripture is God-breathed." (NIV, TNIV)
"All Scripture is breathed out by God." (ESV)

In terms of word-for-word correspondence, which Ryken favors, the NIV and TNIV are closer than the ESV!

Ryken complains that dynamic equivalence lacks the ability to regulate itself--that it is a slippery slope leading to some interpretive free-for-all: "Dynamic equivalent translations ordinarily show a much greater range of variability than essentially literal translations display.... Dynamic equivalence lacks an internal set of controls on the translation process."

He cites 1 Thessalonians 1:3 to make his point, noting that most word-for-word translations read basically the same: "...your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope..." By contrast, the NIV and TNIV read, "...your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love and your endurance inspired by hope..."

Ryken says this kind of rendering is exactly what happens when "fidelity to the original is abandoned"--that is, when we abandon "the words of the original for its ideas." What Ryken fails to realize is that the NIV's wording wasn't based on some subjective commitment only to the ideas of the text. Nor did it come about because the translators abandoned the words of the original. The NIV's translation results precisely from a careful understanding of the grammatical nuances of the words of the text. The Greek words for "faith," "hope" and "love" all appear in the genitive form in 1 Thess. 1:3--a form that can contribute richly to the meaning of a text, provided that it's properly translated. Formal equivalent translations, in this case, miss out on the richness of meaning captured so well by the NIV and other versions. More importantly, the NIV's translation has everything to do with fidelity to the original words. Ryken doesn't see this because he's not a translator.

In short, Ryken's argument is crippled by his lack of expertise in his chosen subject. Unless one has done the arduous work of translation, sweating and toiling over the original languages for themselves, he or she cannot possibly appreciate all the complexities of the task.

Michael Horton says Ryken's book is "far from an irksome screed in favor of one translation." But between the frequent, unflattering caricatures of dynamic equivalence and the equally frequent, not-so-subtle endorsements of the ESV (for which Ryken served as a literary consultant), this book seems to be precisely such an "irksome screed."

It was almost four years ago, while engaged in my regular habit of reading the new edition of WORLD magazine, that I came across an article by the publisher, Joel Belz. Part of his column was a review of this book, which contained the descriptive phrase " ... my most important read of the century--or, for that matter, of the millennium ..." Such words could easily cause one to conclude that his comments were merely hyperbole. However, since I had regularly read his columns, I knew that there must be substance behind what he stated. Following the above-mentioned phrase, his second paragraph was as follows:

"But you get the point. If the Bible itself is the most important book ever to confront the human race, I will argue that the Ryken volume may do more to change how you view the Bible (and how you read it) than any book, preacher, professor, or other influence you have ever had."

The entire column written by Belz was the primary reason that I purchased and avidly read the book. After now having read it a second time, and having underlined even more sentences, I conclude that it is time--indeed, past time--to spend a few moments in writing some further comments about this insightful, well-written, and quite significant book.

Ryken's book examines the issues in this book within four major headings: (1) lessons from overlooked sources; (2) common fallacies of translation; (3) theological, ethical, and hermeneutical issues; and (4) modern translations: problems and their solutions. For myself, the first two parts, especially, were helpful as they delve into aspects of translation issues which are not normally discussed by those who have written about various topics regarding translations of the Bible. Throughout the entire book, Ryken writes with an irenic and respectful tone, giving compliments, in appropriate ways, to those people who advocate views with which he firmly disagrees. There are definitely no ad hominem attacks in this book (in direct contrast to such attacks which seem to permeate many of the articles written by those in defense of the so-called "King James Only" view). However, Ryken clearly distinguishes between the "essentially literal" translations and the "dynamic equivalent" translations. Another positive feature, which permeates the book, deals with the fact that Ryken clearly and specifically defines his terms. It is quite insightful to read Ryken's comments concerning the fact that much of the vocabulary and controversy inherent between these two different theories only has arisen within the last half-century. His comments and arguments are simple enough to be readily understood, but also profound enough that I often found myself going back to read an entire sentence (or even a full paragraph) again, just to make sure that I really understood what he was saying. And I believe that the implications of his theses are really staggering!

One implication of the book which I believe is important, but which Ryken did not mention, concerns any attempt by someone reading a "dynamic equivalent" translation, who may wish to delve deeply into the Word of God by doing a "word study". For such a person, without any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, the use of a concordance, while using the NLT, CEV, or "The Message" is simply worthless. The extremely wide range and variety of words used (and others intentionally deleted) in these so-called translations renders any such attempt at a deep and thoughtful study as utterly impossible. As Ryken so aptly points out, there is strong consistency among the various "essentially literal" translations, but there is wide diversity between the various "dynamic equivalent" translations.

The "dynamic equivalent" translations were given a substantial, although perhaps indirect, endorsement by Rick Warren, in his book "The Purpose Driven Life", since he used 15 different translations in that book. The brief three paragraphs, in an appendix, which describe his reasons for using such a plethora of translations (only some of which, I believe, are really legitimate translations), are quite revealing about Warren's beliefs. But Ryken's book also clearly demonstrates the invalid nature of Warren's attempted justification.

As Ryken has pointed out, the "dynamic equivalence" theory is subjective in nature. I also perceive that such a theory allows for subsequent so-called translations to remain consistent with the principles of this theory, but yet to continue to drift even further from what the Hebrew and Greek actually said. Such has been the case with the so-called translation "Good As New", by John Henson. "Good as New" is much more extreme than even "The Message", but yet is fully consistent with the "dynamic equivalent" principles. It is valid to declare that the acceptance of the NLT and CEV as legitimate will eventually lead to even more "radical" translations (an example of the "slippery slope" argument), because of the existence of "Good as New".

I realize that a significant portion of what I have written drifts away from an actual review of Ryken's book. However, I have done so because, as the old adage indicates, "ideas have consequences". I would also add that significant ideas have significant consequences. And since Ryken's book deals with issues of what constitutes legitimate English translations of the Word of God, it is undeniably an extremely important topic. I simply wish to add some further implications of these issues, which Ryken did not discuss in the book.

The book is not perfect, nor does it claim to be. In comparison to the immense positive value which is contained in the book, the few and minor criticisms which I would have are not worthy to be mentioned. This book deserves the highest possible recommendation.