• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Hcsb

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But you see, it doesn't even matter who can line up the most scholars. Truth is not determined by the majority. "I have more scholars than you" is simply irrelevant.

I think you are getting a little heavy here John. This subject of what translations can be considered DE and which ones are not is something that can be reasoned-out.

If most N.T. scholars say one way or the other than it is pretty well settled. This is not like Cal vs. non-Cal.

You have the idea that the HCSB is somehow on the blessed terrain of Optimal Equivalence and that the 2011 NIV rests on the shaky ground of Dynamic Equivalence.

I have always insisted that both translations are in the mediating territory. There is not a whole lot that separates them in reality. They have much more in common than what divides them.

The makers of the HCSB market it with the catch-phrase of Optimal Equivalence. But there is nothing magical about it. The Method of O.P. can also be applied to the ISV,NAB, 2011 NIV and NET to a certain extent.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If most N.T. scholars say one way or the other than it is pretty well settled.
Wow, you haven't read much in the theological journals have you? (Let me see, is there a way I can comment tactfully?) This statement is baloney. (Nope, guess not.)
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If you had read much at all in the theological journals you would know that a majority of opinion in theology means diddly squat. Same in the area of translations.

I think that you are ulta-biased against anything NIV. You can't recognize any redeeming qualities in the 2011 NIV. You think that if a translator plugs in the magical Optimal Equivalence maximizer then out comes the very best English translation that could be (And by the way,it should be worlds away from the rendering of the 2011 NIV.If the wording is similar then we made a mistake somewhere.Our optimizer minimized somehow):smilewinkgrin:

I would think that in the area of translation there would be more of a consensus rather than discord regarding what constitutes a DE translation and what versions do not qualify as DE. All versions use DE to an extent. But as a major method of translating --an overriding principle --the 2011 NIV does not qualify anymore than the HCSB does.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think that you are ulta-biased against anything NIV. You can't recognize any redeeming qualities in the 2011 NIV. You think that if a translator plugs in the magical Optimal Equivalence maximizer then out comes the very best English translation that could be (And by the way,it should be worlds away from the rendering of the 2011 NIV.If the wording is similar then we made a mistake somewhere.Our optimizer minimized somehow):smilewinkgrin:

I would think that in the area of translation there would be more of a consensus rather than discord regarding what constitutes a DE translation and what versions do not qualify as DE. All versions use DE to an extent. But as a major method of translating --an overriding principle --the 2011 NIV does not qualify anymore than the HCSB does.
You know what? I don't even care about anything NIV. I really don't care if it's DE or not, it's not in Japanese and so has no effect whatsoever on my ministry. I never even think about the NIV except when I see you mention it here. I did the research here one time on the BB that convinced me it was DE, but other than that, I don't even care. It's not on my radar.

And the time I clearly defined DE here on the BB, not only did you not object at first, you did not give your own definition. So frankly, since then I've figured that you just don't know what you are talking about, so why bother?
 

glfredrick

New Member
I think that you are ulta-biased against anything NIV. You can't recognize any redeeming qualities in the 2011 NIV. You think that if a translator plugs in the magical Optimal Equivalence maximizer then out comes the very best English translation that could be (And by the way,it should be worlds away from the rendering of the 2011 NIV.If the wording is similar then we made a mistake somewhere.Our optimizer minimized somehow):smilewinkgrin:

I would think that in the area of translation there would be more of a consensus rather than discord regarding what constitutes a DE translation and what versions do not qualify as DE. All versions use DE to an extent. But as a major method of translating --an overriding principle --the 2011 NIV does not qualify anymore than the HCSB does.

Just a question here... Do you understand what the translators mean when they say "optimal equivalence?" I would be interested to know, for I know several of the men who did the translation work personally and have had conversations with them about the means they used to do the work (and yes, they did "translate" every word).

LifeWay Christian Resources assembled an interdenominational team of more than 100 scholars, editors, stylists and proofreaders -- all committed to biblical inerrancy. After years of work, they produced the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) New Testament 10 years ago, in 2001, and then released the full Bible in 2004. A revision was released in 2009.

"Our goal was to be as accurate as the New American Standard but to be as readable as the NIV," HCSB General Editor Ed Blum said. "And I think if you read our translation, you'll see that it is readable; it is accurate. ... I would say we're the most accurate of all the translations."

Before the HCSB, Bible translations were produced using one of two approaches: formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence versions translate word-for-word from the Greek and Hebrew texts and preserve the grammatical patterns of the original languages wherever they can be reproduced in understandable English. Dynamic equivalence versions of Scripture translate thought-for-thought, not always preserving the structure of the original languages since English does not use the same idioms and grammatical patterns as ancient languages.

The HCSB team attempted to capture the best of both approaches by adopting a new approach dubbed "optimal equivalence."

According to this approach, the HCSB translated word-for-word whenever such a translation was clear and readable in modern English. When a literal translation did not meet that standard, though, the HCSB used idiomatic English and put a literal translation in a footnote labeled "lit."

"We share many of the same commitments as formal equivalence translations," said HCSB associate general editor Ray Clendenen. "That is, we try to render word-for-word translation and translate a verb as a verb, an adjective as an adjective and things of that sort. And we try to translate a particular Hebrew or Greek word the same way throughout the Bible if it's in the same context.

"But we also share some of the commitments of the dynamic equivalence approach," he said. "For instance, whereas the formal equivalence approach says, 'If a literal, word-for-word translation makes sense in English, that's good enough,' optimal equivalence shares with dynamic equivalence the value of insisting that the English not only make sense, but that it be natural rather than awkward or wooden."

Blum added that the HCSB adopts grammatical standards of contemporary American English, not those of British English like the Revised Standard or English Standard Versions. Practically, that means using American style quotation marks, capitalizing nouns and pronouns that refer to deity, and using contractions like "don't" and "won't" where appropriate.

The HCSB also places bullets next to common theological terms the first time they are used in a chapter -- more often for particularly important or misunderstood terms. Then a list of definitions for those terms is provided in the back section.

TRANSLATION PROCESS

Achieving an accurate and readable English translation was not easy, Blum said. The HCSB team worked 22 times through the Greek text of John, for example, and the book of Isaiah took seven months to complete.

Each book went through several drafts, and translators all worked with English language stylists to achieve the most understandable text possible.

David Stabnow, an HCSB Old Testament editor, recalled the give-and-take process of working with a stylist.

"Usually we came to agreement on a translation that was both good English and accurate to the original without much difficulty," he said. "But every once in a while we struggled to come to agreement. She would say, 'That's not good English,' and I would say, 'But we need to be accurate.' As a result, in no case was accuracy compromised."

Said Jeremy Howard, Bible publisher at LifeWay's B&H Publishing Group, "Accuracy and readability are the twin concerns of our approach to Bible translation. The HCSB translation team upheld both of these concerns with every decision they made."

The translation process was made easier by computer technology. Blum said the HCSB is the first print translation done start-to-finish in the computer age. That allowed the translation team to use Bible software rather than relying exclusively on books. Also, translators communicated rapidly and widely via the Internet, feats that were not possible for translators of previous Bible versions.

All translations were done from standard critical editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible, texts compiled by examining all of the available manuscripts and determining what the original authors most likely wrote. By contrast, some other translations are based on texts compiled from far fewer manuscripts.

Wherever there was a question about what the original author wrote, the HCSB team consulted Bible manuscript experts in order to arrive at the best-supported conclusion. In places where various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts contain significant differences, the HCSB includes footnotes saying "other mss [manuscripts] read ..." or "Other mss omit ...."


Here is another very interesting link for those who would like to watch a debate between some of the participants of translation for three versions:

http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2011/10/lu-biblical-studies-symposium-ray.html
 

Amy.G

New Member
Here is another very interesting link for those who would like to watch a debate between some of the participants of translation for three versions:

http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2011/10/lu-biblical-studies-symposium-ray.html

That was very interesting. Thanks for posting. I was impressed with each speaker and convinced that each truly desired an accurate yet readable text. They all appeared to me to be fine Christian men with honest intentions. It was also eye opening to hear how the different translation methods are done and made me see how utterly complicated it is to translate something as important as the bible from one language to another. It is no easy task. I have a much better appreciation for translators.
 

glfredrick

New Member
That was very interesting. Thanks for posting. I was impressed with each speaker and convinced that each truly desired an accurate yet readable text. They all appeared to me to be fine Christian men with honest intentions. It was also eye opening to hear how the different translation methods are done and made me see how utterly complicated it is to translate something as important as the bible from one language to another. It is no easy task. I have a much better appreciation for translators.

All are good (great!) men and the translations they represent are great translations, but each has a certain emphasis or means and to ignore that might do a disservice overall.

The discussion does sort of work contra to some of Rippon's blathering on the subject, however.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And you are his polar opposite. You are biased for the NIV at the expense of any other translation.

Now you know that is completely false Mexdeaf. You know of many threads that I have devoted to many other versions outside of the NIV which I admire. Or maybe you have forgotten :the MLB,NLTse,Norlie,REB etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And the time I clearly defined DE here on the BB, not only did you not object at first, you did not give your own definition.

Am I under orders to respond to everything you say about your private interpretation of DE?

Like it or not,dynamic Equivalence is not solely something that has to abide by the rules and principles of Eugene Nida. It was around long before he came on the scene. Jerome, Purvey and Luther used it in their translations.

So frankly, since then I've figured ...

Perhaps you shouldn't be so presumptuous there missionary JoJ.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I know several of the men who did the translation work personally and have had conversations with them about the means they used to do the work

I wish you would have more appreciation for consistency. You show respect for the HCSB translation team --as do I. But the same consideration you find hard to extend to the 2011 NIV translation team. You have still chosen not to explain why you have said slanderous things about the translation --and hence the team.


(and yes, they did "translate" every word).
They made the attempt to do that,as do all translation teams. But some things are left untranslated in all Bible versions. It's not evil,;it's just the way things are with imperfect trtanslations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is another very interesting link for those who would like to watch a debate between some of the participants of translation for three versions:

http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2011/10/lu-biblical-studies-symposium-ray.html

The link doesn't work here in the Mainland. However,I saw/listened to about 75% of the whole thing. It was interesting in particular that some number of questions that audience members had for Doug Moo (head of the NIV team) were deflected because of ignorance of the questioner --even to the point of quoting things allegedly from the 2011 NIV that were not even in the text!

Grudem seems to have calmed down somewhat from his seek and destroy mission years back regarding the TNIV. I noticed he was agreeing with a lot of things Dr.Moo was saying.

Grudem also said (if my memory serves me)that if it was up to him "brothers and sisters" would have been in the text,instead of the footnotes --but he was outvoted. In my count several years back there were 151 times where the footnotes would say "Or,brothers and sisters."
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Like it or not,dynamic Equivalence is not solely something that has to abide by the rules and principles of Eugene Nida. It was around long before he came on the scene. Jerome, Purvey and Luther used it in their translations.
I'll believe this when you give me quotes from Jerome, Purvey and Luther promoting reader response theory, the linchpin of DE. Barring that, you have once again proved you don't understand DE by mixing it up with thought-for-thought.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'll believe this when you give me quotes from Jerome, Purvey and Luther promoting reader response theory, the linchpin of DE. Barring that, you have once again proved you don't understand DE by mixing it up with thought-for-thought.

Dear John,you just don't get it,do you? What is generally known as DE or Functional Equivalence in modern times was employed in times past by the above translators as a guiding principle.

Even modern DE versions such as NLTse,do not ascribe to all or even most of Nida's dictates. If you are willing to call the NLTse a DE translation then why?

Nida did groundbreaking work,granted,but his general method was employed long before he was born. He simply codified some principles --yet the method was already in operation centuries before without adhering to his particular propositions.
 

Mexdeaf

New Member
Now you know that is completely false Mexdeaf. You know of many threads that I have devoted to many other versions outside of the NIV which I admire. Or maybe you have forgotten :the MLB,NLTse,Norlie,REB etc.

Testy, are we? I was speaking TIC- didn't you see the second sentence with the smiley face?

The point was, the room is big enough for the both of you.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dear John,you just don't get it,do you? What is generally known as DE or Functional Equivalence in modern times was employed in times past by the above translators as a guiding principle.

Even modern DE versions such as NLTse,do not ascribe to all or even most of Nida's dictates. If you are willing to call the NLTse a DE translation then why?

Nida did groundbreaking work,granted,but his general method was employed long before he was born. He simply codified some principles --yet the method was already in operation centuries before without adhering to his particular propositions.
I'll believe this when you give me quotes from Jerome, Purvey and Luther promoting reader response theory, the linchpin of DE. Barring that, you have once again proved you don't understand DE by mixing it up with thought-for-thought.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'll believe this when you give me quotes from Jerome, Purvey and Luther promoting reader response theory, the linchpin of DE.

You already said all that in your post #116. And I replied in post #117. Keep up,the pace isn't that fast.:laugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top