Do you think that they will allow for as much inclusive language as the Niv 2011 did, or stay with as little as required?
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is there really an Optimal Translation theory?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
No, as there are 'essentially literal" versions available!Whenever possible = rarely.
The latter.Do you think that they will allow for as much inclusive language as the Niv 2011 did, or stay with as little as required?
Would that be the right thing to do, in your opinion?The latter.
Last edited:
Back the truck up.No, as there are 'essentially literal" versions available!
In post 36 you said:"One can have a theory that would be a direct word-for-word translation whenever possible."
In post #40 I said :"Whenever possible = rarely."
That's a foolish theory. And so-called essentially literal versions are not the same thing as the elusive word-for-word fantasy.
Another thing : when a translation marketing arm hypes up "essentially literal" it doesn't even accomplish that most of the time. Much (not all) of the stated translational philosophy of the ESV is bogus. In real practice it is not much different than that of the CSB and NIV.
Put that in understandable English please.Would that right in your opinion?
Just think that there are degrees of being literal, and that the literalness to me would be the Esv, then the Csb, and then the ole Niv!Back the truck up.
In post 36 you said:"One can have a theory that would be a direct word-for-word translation whenever possible."
In post #40 I said :"Whenever possible = rarely."
That's a foolish theory. And so-called essentially literal versions are not the same thing as the elusive word-for-word fantasy.
Another thing : when a translation marketing arm hypes up "essentially literal" it doesn't even accomplish that most of the time. Much (not all) of the stated translational philosophy of the ESV is bogus. In real practice it is not much different than that of the CSB and NIV.