Biblical errancy.

I don't like the term "formal equivalence" myself. But we may be straying from the OP; don't know what the OP author thinks, since he's not posting right now. But personally my belief in verbal-plenary inspiration does drive my translation method.

 

I've read the old HCSB and the original NIV (twice), but can't speak to their upgrades. Don't have the time or money.

 

And..."Rippon the Unqualified" is back to his nastiness again. And he's out of touch, writing "With your endless, mind-numbing threads on Eugene Nida --you haven't a clue." I haven't done a thread on Nida in years, and I think I only did one on him anyways (though I did others on his method). So I'll just plant old Rippon back on "ignore," where he deserves to be.

 

What did you think of those 2 versions?

 

Normally the only time that you get him riled up is if you post anything negative on his Niv!

 

What would you prefer to call translations such as the Nas/Nkjv theory on how to do the version?

 

And I haven't done that in years. He probably just can't stand me.

 

I put him on ignore a long time ago

 

Whatever their translators called them, so NASB: contemporary English (preface to the first edition)

NKJV: optimal equivalence.

I get impatient with all the labeling and comparing. Let the translators tell us what they were doing.

 

You do like both of them for use, correct?

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What is your point in regards to what I wrote?

 

I would not preach from either, but am in favor of using translations for study, though if one knows the original languages one should go there first.

 

What English translations would you see as being good to use though?

 

No, itshow the translator themselves have chosen to define it, see that in both the Nkjv and the Csb!

 

No, sorry, there is no "interpretation" or dynamic equivalence in the NKJV in Col. 1:15. The Greek word there is ktisis, which can mean either "creation" or "created being." The NKJV translators simply made a translation decision, based on the context, to go with the meaning "creation" instead of "creature." In the context (v. 16) the things being mentioned are not "creatures."

Optimal equivalence is a translation method that generally translates literally by seeking the "optimal equivalent" in the target language, while working for good literary quality in the target text. It was delineated by Dr. James Price, my Hebrew teacher (1976) and the OT editor of the HCSV and NKJV.

 

Once again, we must look at the context. Note that in v. 16 Paul points out that Christ created all things. So then in translating v. 15 we cannot say that He created Himself. The genitive is thus a "genitive of subordination," and may be translated "over." The Greek genitive is often translated something other than as a possessive.

Vincent's Word Studies has: "We must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created. The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, Col_1:17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εἰς) Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Psa_89:27; Heb_1:2."