Biblical errancy.

Inerrancy though assumes that there are no mistakes/errors contained within the Greek or Hebrew texts used today as compared to the originals themselves, and I hold that no text used today are 100 % copies of those originals, but that in all things that are written there concerning faith/theology/practices/history et all, they are indeed infallible...

 

And there is optimal equivalence. It is a genuine translation method, different from the typical literal or DE method, delineated by leading Hebrew scholar James Price, and touted by translation experts such as Dr. David L. Brooks and some translators I know.

 

Both the Csb and the Nkjv claim to have used that as their primary way of translation!

 

That's because they did use that as their primary method. Dr. James Price was the OT editor on both translations.

I have known Dr. Price for over 40 years, and I own and have read his two books on optimal equivalence: Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (the editor chose this title; Dr. Price wanted "Optimal" instead of "Complete" even then--1987) and A Theory for Bible Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model (2007). (Be advised: the second book runs over $100.)

The suggestion that the OE term is just for marketing is insulting to Dr. Price, a great scholar and Bible translator. I will further say that unless one has read both of his books on the method mentioned above, he or she is not qualified to criticize the method. Our BB critic has not read the books.

 

I can say that only have read a couple written by the Alands on the Greek NT, and one on the OT texts, but I still see myself being ahead of many here in that regard, as there are those like yourself who are far superior to myself in this area, but can converse and know a bit on what you are saying, which seems to be beyond some others here!

 

Thank you for the kind words. God has gifted me in the areas of language teaching and translation, and I've done my best to use those gifts over the decades. Keep using what you have yourself!

 

I have tried to study when I can the Greek text, with use of the various study tools in my Gramcord and Logos bible software packages, but have found its really best to concentrate for me for right now fully into the English versions...

 

Glenn J. Kerr "Optimal Equivalence Theory does not lend itself easily to a simple definition, and Price's entry could easily be applied to Dynamic Equivalence, or Meaning-Based Theory."

Dr. Bill Mounce : " The CSB makes up a term, 'optimal equivalent,' which really doesn't mean anything." (Nov. 3, 2017)

 

No, the PR arm for the NKJV promoted the idea of "complete equivalence" which is complete nonsense.

 

To each his or her own calling.

 

I normally ignore your natterings, since you are not qualified to give any input on anything to do with translation, but since you've quoted two genuine scholars (without sourcing the quotes, which is unethical), I'll answer simply.

1. I have met Glen and respect him highly. But his basic statement is incorrect--unless of course you took it out of context. But then who can tell, since you don't give the source.
2. Mounce is normally very good, but he doesn't know what he is talking about here, if your quote means the same in context. Dr. Price was developing his translation theory many years before the HCSB/CSB was first published in 1999. He already was using the term when his book Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation was published in 1987. He once told me that the publishers insisted on the term "complete equivalence," which did not accurately describe his method.

 

I'm glad we are in agreement on this. But you understated it. Instead of "not accurately describe[ing] his method" -- it was indeed a completely nonsensical term.

 

Still on the subject of Optimal Equivalence : From the Preface of the HCSB, which seeks to explain it:

"The nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original."

But Dr. Thomas Nass (Professor of Hebrew at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary) has a rebuttal :

"Facetiously, one could say that these goals are nothing new. This is much the way the ESV describes its work, and even the NIV and NLT. Everyone wants to convey as much information as possible. Many translations claim to shift away from the literal only when it is needed to render the text clearly in English."

Rod Decker (12/11/2011) on his blog stated this about the HCSB :

" As for calling their translation philosophy 'optimal equivalence,' that's just a marketing slogan... It does not present a new way, a third 'pole' on the translation spectrum. It is simply their attempt to balance formal and functional --which is fine, that's what NET and NIV do also. But uninformed readers will think it's something new."

 

No surprise here. Rod was an advocate for dynamic equivalence, as I learned when I presented a paper on the subject at a Bible profs' meeting shortly after Rod died. The meeting had some of his friends there, and one in particular roasted me in the Q&A. So as a DE advocate, it is only natural that Rod should oppose and ridicule OE (no offense intended to his memory, since he was a good Greek scholar). That doesn't mean he understood it.

 

He preached from the ESV. Do you consider that DE?

Despite all your babbling on the subject of dynamic equivalence, you speak with no discernment. With your endless, mind-numbing threads on Eugene Nida --you haven't a clue. When you lumped the NIV with the CEV and TEV as if they all are of the same stamp, I knew you were either 1) dishonest or 2) supremely biased. The third option is a combo of both #1 and #2.

Your praise of Leland Ryken's theories on Bible translation with no caveats was most instructive that you have bought into nonsense.

You can't come to grips with this reality : Mediating versions are a blend of more formal elements and more functionally equivalent components. The NIV, CSB and NET are among those translations that occupy this middle ground. The old Modern Language Bible and Norlie New Testament are also examples of this from the past.

 

Shouldn't the preferred method of translation being the formal way though, especially if one holds to verbal inspiration?

 

The Nkjv that uses that method though is much more formal translation, and does not buy into inclusive language as much as those you mentioned that also use it!

 

What do you think of the Csb and the 2011 Niv, as know that you support the Nkjv?

 

You have repeated that stupidity dozens of times couched in the form of a question, yet it's really a statement.

Would you like to accuse the translators of the NLT of not holding to plenary verbal inspiration? Of course not. Think things through. You are not worthy to tie their shoestrings, but you make asinine assertions like this all the time.

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

"The Christian doctrine of divine inspiration concerns not words in isolation, but the meaning of those words in context...The Hebrew and Greek text must be painstakingly reproduced using different words, phrases and clauses in English. The translation that most closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text, not just its words." (p.36)

 

The intended meaning though given to us by god would be the very words themselves chosen by God!