Re: dynamic equivalence \

The term "dynamic equivalence" has been much used lately. Some seem to imply
that the NIV is a translation based on that principle, others that it only
has sympathies in that direction. Does the term have some industry standard
agreed upon meaning? Or does everyone who uses the term ascribe his or her
own understanding of it, depending on whether one likes or dislikes the
general principle it seems embrace? Perhaps the same general fuzziness or
lack of agreed meaning applies to the words "fundamentalist" and the word
"evangelical." Their meanings seems to shift considerably, dependent
heavily on the predisposition of the user.

Would anyone care to define these, especially the term "dynamic equivalence"?
And are there perhaps better principles of translation, ones that would be
more helpful and useful and more clearly and universally understood?

Richard F. Wevers
Calvin College                  weve@ursa.calvin.edu