Featured The genetics of Bible translation

The Niv/Hcsb both wpuld be mediating translations, having both literal and dynamic renderings, but the Niv erred more times on the more dynamic view on the whole!

Nasb/Nkjv would be closest to being formal/literal versions...

 

This not only refers to translating each word (to the best of the translators ability) into an English word or phrase, it also includes staying as close to the grammar as possible. Nouns remain nouns, and are not rendered as verbs, or vice versa, as the ESV does over and over.

Thus the two translations that best exemplify this method are the NASB and NKJV.

 

As much as you have praised the merits of the NET Bible you have ignored its notes which agree with D.A. Carson, in his The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation.

"How often, for example, have I taken second-year Greek students aside and explained at length how rarely a Greek participle should be rendered by an English participle, how many of the Greek connectives must find no formal equivalent in a specific English word but survive in the flow of the English sentence, and so forth."

 

Other mediating translations :ISV, NAB, NET Bible, REB, NJB, the old MLB, Norlie etc.

What do you mean with your "erred more times" with dynamic renderings? Do you mean that the NIV's blend wasn't the correct proportion of equal parts dynamic and formal elements in your understanding?

"There is widespread recognition of the inadequacy of merely formal equivalence in translation, buttressed by thousands of examples. Undergirding such reognition is the awareness that expressions such as 'literal translation' and 'paraphrase' are steeped in ambiquity and, in any case, belong, not in mutually exclusive categories, but on the same spectrum: A 'too literal' translation can be as bad as a 'too paraphrastic' translation, if for different reasons."

"These exponents are for the most part acutely aware of the dangers of functional-equivalence theory and hoist their own flags of warning; but they are also acutely aware of the dangers of more direct translation. The linguistically conservative critics of functional equivalence, however, cite the dangers as though they were insuperable objections to the theory (rather than features of which the functional-equivalence theorists are thoroughly aware), while not, on the whole, treating evenhandedly the plethora of problems that helped call functional equiavlence theory into being. And in some cases, it must be said, the objections adavnced by those critics who prefer more direct translation are linguistically naive."

Both quotes are taken from D.A. Carson's The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation.

 

There are lots of reasons given, really just a smokescreen, to justify rewriting scripture to fit man-made doctrine. Nouns should be translated as nouns, and words that alter the meaning should not be added to rewrite the text to support man-made doctrine.

 

Which English translation always translates the part of speech of each original language word into the same part of speech in English and never translates them as a different part of speech?

Which English translation adds no words in English for which there is no specific original language word?

Does the ESV actually always translate the part of speech of every original language word as the same exact part of speech in English?

 

That sounds a lot like the inconsistent, incorrect claims of some KJV-only authors.

KJV-only author Gail Riplinger asserted: “With the devil’s destructive dynamite, one Bible word breaks into many pieces. With his Dynamic Equivalence method, used by new version editors, several English words are often used to translate one Greek or Hebrew word. Parts of speech are not necessarily carried over (e.g. a noun might be translated as an adjective, a singular word, like him, may become the plural, them) (In Awe, p. 271).

KJV-only author E. W. Whitten even asserted: “If you change the Words, punctuation, tense, position, or anything, it is no longer Scripture” (Truth, p. 39). Whitten claimed: “You cannot add or subtract Words, which includes changing their position in the sentence” (p. 38).

KJV-only author Troy Clark asserted: When translating scripture by dynamic equivalency method, parts of speech may be switched by the person translating, as it is carried over from one language to another. … Verbs may change in tense. An adjective might become a noun. Plurals become singular. One word becomes three words” (Perfect Bible, p. 42).

KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: “Dynamic equivalency ignores God’s warnings about adding to or taking away from God’s word” (Dynamic Equivalency, p. 43; Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 121; Faith, p. 664). He also stated: “Dynamic equivalency robs men of God’s words” (p. 44; Faith, p. 664). Cloud claimed: “It is impossible to be true to the Word of God while being faithful to dynamic equivalency” (Way of Life, p. 115). He also contended that “the bottom line is that dynamic equivalency is a perversion of Scripture” (p. 126). Cloud wrote that “dynamic equivalency denies the nature of the Bible” (Faith, p. 663). As part of his ten-fold defense of the KJV, Cloud maintained that “we hold to the KJV because we reject dynamic equivalency” (Faith, pp. 6, 29, 653).

 

Hi Logos1560, I believe no modern translation is perfect, but rather some translations come closer to fidelity than others. So being consistent with the grammar is a good thing, even if the goal cannot be achieved perfectly.

Sometimes words are added to the text to clarify what is being said. These additions are identified (italicized) in the best translations.

If I said the ESV does a good job at sticking with the grammar, I misspoke, what I tried to say is the ESV does not stick with the grammar in many cases where the NKJV or NASB do stick with the grammar. Thus I was referring to a flaw, in my opinion, in the ESV.

 

Hi Logos, just because I share some opinions with KJVO authors, does not preclude my view that the KJVO folks are completely off the rails. I share some views with Calvinists, but not the TULI of the Tulip. I share some views with Open Theists, with Arminians, and so forth. But at the same time I hold differing views with all of them. My final authority is my understanding of what Scripture teaches.

I believe Bible study should start by using a "word for word" translation philosophy version such as the NKJV or NASB. But I also believe these should be compared with other translations such as the NET, HCSB, WEB and so forth.

 

erred in this posting was meant to mean as that they chose to go with a more dynamic rendering more often then those who did the HCSB, not that they were into errors...

 

Fractionally. The 2011 NIV is less dynamic than the 84 version.

 

Except when it comes to the case of the gender issues of translation though!

 

You overuse exclamation marks to the extent that they have become meaningless in your posts.

I used to have the exact number at my command as to how many footnotes the ESV has in the N.T. where it gives the alternate "Or, brothers and sisters." It was something between 131-151 times.

In James, for instance, it occurs 14 times in 5 chapters. In 1 Corinthians, which has 16 chapters it occurs 21 times.

The alternate rendering in the footnotes could very well be put in the text in future ESV editions where it now has brothers.

Would that eventuality then be considered dynamic by you?

 

Not dynamic in the traditional sense, but would be seen as condescending towards prevelant views that there is no subordination in the church any more...

Which i so not see the scriptures actually teaching, as we all are indeed equal as to salvation, but not as to roles and positions within the Body...

 

Look at the following references and note how your thesis has no foundation.

James

1:2,16,19
2:1,5,14
3:10,12
4:11
5:7,9,10,12,19

 

The NET Bible, in all of the above verses also uses "brothers and sisters." Are you willing to call it a liberal, PC-driven, feminist translation?

 

All translations make use of "dynamic" language. If they didn't, it wouldn't make sense.

 

Agreed. It takes place much more often even in some of the so-called "formal" versions.

But what Y1 was complaining about is the gender language. He thinks the 2011 NIV somehow mixes gender roles --that it is against complementarianism. And of course that is a bogus charge.

 

Do you deny that there has been in the church now a push towards a feminist agenda, to try to have the scriptures state that both males and females now are fully equal in the sense that both can now do same roles, such as pastor and elder?