Featured Any here used the Zondervan Niv Study Bible yet?

Most will say yes. The fact it is highly similar to the NASB probably points to yes as well.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

As usual you do not respond to specifics. I asked you about half a dozen specific questions and you have not answered even one. Please pay attention.

 

Hello! Newbie here.

When discussing literal vs. dynamic translations, I think people forget that there's no real way to word for word translate from one language to another and have it make sense. I am fully fluent in English and Spanish and can speak/understand other languages in a non-fluent manner (French, Portuguese and German). To translate "word for word" is almost impossible. For example: Take the sentence "I have a red shirt". In Spanish, natively, it would be "Yo tengo una blusa roja" which, when literally translated is "I have a shirt red" That makes NO sense in English, right? So, when translating, words get rearranged, assigned other meanings..."blusa" can mean shirt, blouse or top, right? SO, it's a matter of figuring out which word fits...hence a dynamic translation.

So, the discussion of "word for word" vs. "dynamic" translation is really a non-issue. All translations are dynamic, that is, when translating, the translator is trying to find the right word to fit the situation. The meaning is the same, but a word that fits is chosen.

 

That is what is meant by dynamic equivalency. It is more than just finding words that work. And they don't always have the same exaxt meaning.

Nida, the father of dynamic equivalency defines the process as one that "put the priority on the needs of the audience over forms of language." The formal equivalency seeks to serve the texts orginal meaning as much as possible, with the audience being secondary. Dynamic places priority on the reader. Formal places priority on the orginal meaning.

Nida also placed emphasis on the speech usage of 25-35 year olds and often favored women's usage over man's usage of speech.

Nida, identifed both formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency and his work defines them as such....

The principles governing an F-E translation would then be: reproduction of grammatical units; consistency in word usage; and meanings in terms of the source context.

D-E on the other hand aims at complete "naturalness" of expression. A D-E translation is directed primarily towards equivalence of response rather than equivalence of form. The relationship between the target language receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original (source language) receptors and the message.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Of course it does. When the priority is a assigned to the reader, you want to make it as clear as possible. That may involve having to use a very specific, narrow word in meaning to convey the thought. At times DE can go too far.

So really you believe serious Bible study involves the use of both types



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I have a typo in first sentence. It should read "That is *not* what is meant by dynamic equivalency "

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You mean "specifics".
Go to my post #37 as I asked you to do earlier and answer the questions I posed there.

 

Of course. Reading, studying and meditating on a range of translational choices gives better insight into the text than focusing on one brand.

 

From How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss:

"Finally, it should be noted that some people reject the use of easy-to-read versions because they claim that some of the meaning of the original text is inevitably lost. This point, as we have seen is debatable, and it could be argued that idiomatic versions are actually more accurate. But allowing for the moment that some versions oversimplify the text and therby miss some of the meaning, does this really negate their value?
Consider the following scenario. One reader picks up a formal equivalent version and reads Paul's letter to the Romans, understanding about 50% of what he reads. Another person picks up a children's version like the NIrV and reads the same letter, comprehending about 95% of what she reads. One might well ask, who walks away with a greater knowledge of God's Word? The point is that whatever inadequacies an idiomatic version may have are far outweighed by the benefits of hearing and comprehending God's Word." (p.41)

 

So awkward means accurate in your view. Interesting.

 

What do you mean by "the verb"?

 

From How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.

"Functional equivalent versions are also helpful for detailed study, and especially as a complement to Hebrew and Greek study. This is because while literal versions [no such creature exists --Rip] tend to simply reproduce Hebrew and Greek grammatical forms, functional equivalent versions go further and clarify the 'functional' relationships between phrases and clauses. In this way they answer the syntactical and exegetical questions that advanced students are asking about the text." (p. 157)

 

As one who started with the NIV, went to the NASB, then the ESV then to the KJV, I don't have any problem comprehending it. I've read that the various translations have an approximate reading level attached and the KJV is supposedly grade 12.
I do think though that checking through various translations is not necessarily a bad idea for serious, in depth study. Just stay away from the paraphrases.