Featured Definitions

I posed the above question to Y-1. But, as usual, he will avoid it.

 

The following quotes are from D.A. Carson's article in the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation :

"....Translation is an inexact discipline that involves compromise ---give and take ---and that there are subtleties in the source text that demand the most careful evaluation about how best to preserve them without introducing too many extraneous notions." (p.81)

"Appealing to loyalty and faithfulness toward the Word of God as the ground for preserving formal equivalence is both ignorant and manipulative." (p.85)

"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 equivalence in a specific English sentence, and so forth....It is the student of Greek and Hebrew who has a mechanical view of language who will have most difficulty grasping these elementary points and who in the name of fidelity will defend more 'direct' translations, even when the result is largely incomprehensible to the target readers and hearers." (pages 102,103)

 

I see it as being a more dynamic type of Niv....

 

Old school... They fax on occasion.

 

"Whatever terms you use, the NIV and the NLT are fundamentally different and must be kept in separate categories."
(Taken from Bill Mounce's article Do Formal Equivalent Translations Reflect A Higher View Of Plenary Verbal Inspiration?)

 

Mark L. Strauss has chapter 4. I will offer a snip :

"There is, in fact, no such thing as a 'literal translation' (i.e., single, uniform, corresponding exactly with the Hebrew), since every Hebrew word or phrase in this verse (and in virtually any verse) could be translated in a variety in a variety of ways. Every translation constantly involves interpretive decisions, all of which change the words (from Hebrew or Greek to English) and all of which inevitably change subtle nuances of meaning." (p.123)

 

Steven M. Voth authored chapter 4. I'll offer a snip from his opening paragraph.

"It is a well-known fact that translations of any text are never neutral or objective. This is equally true of translations of the Bible. For many years the Christian church lived under the illusion that the translations of the biblical text it was using were free from biases, ideologies, and interpretation. It is now recognized that, minimally speaking, every translation is interpretation. And yet others would even go so far as to argue that every translation is treason, as suggested by the Italian saying traduttore traditore ---- 'A translator is a traitor.' " (p.321)

"

 

Here's a fragment of a paper by Bill Mounce called Do Formal Equivalent Translations Reflect A Higher View Of Plenary, Verbal Inspiration?

"The CSB has also invented a term, 'optimal equivalence' which is basically meaningless. All their statistics are based on the correlation of English words to the original as defined by their reverse interlinears, hence predisposing them to fit in the 'formal equivalent' camp."

 

But it says :"first in terms of meaning." Your eyes are not up to their optical optimum.

 

Bill Mounce, from his blog entry of August 15, in an article called Literal Translations And Paraphrases.

Here's a snippet :

"Translation is the process by which we reproduce the meaning of the text, translation does not replicate the form of the text."

 

Considerably more literal.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

The are not even close. The NIV is closer to the CSB.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I see we are on page three, with the usual claims and assertions, the usual strawman arguments, and the usual outcome.
Word for word means translating the source language intended word meaning into the same target language meaning using a word or phrase. Verbs are translated as verbs and not changed to nouns to alter the message to conform to man-made doctrine.
This is the method used by the so called formal equivalence versions (NASB, NKJV).

Many times you will see the assertion that you cannot use formal equivalence in places and must use functional equivalence.
However, you never see a verse listed that is not found in the NASB/NKJV.

Many times the functional equivalence versions (NIV, CSB) presenting a more "readable" version, by removing or adding words to clarify and simplify the verse. The problem of course is every once in a while, their edit alters the intended message to make it conform to man-made doctrne. Adding "to be" at James 2:5 is an example.

 

You are not a Bible scholar. I asked you to name a Bible scholar who believes as you do. Bill Mounce is considerably more informed about these matters than you are.

 

Ore you joshing? In your OP you said you wanted a discussion about the definition of translating. That's exactly what I have been doing. They say that memory and eyesight are the first to go.