http://www.billmounce.com/
Agree or disagree, interesting that one of the foremost scholars of the day calls the NIV/TNIV "dynamic"
Agree or disagree, interesting that one of the foremost scholars of the day calls the NIV/TNIV "dynamic"
-
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!
Bill Mounce: NIV/TNIV is "Dynamic"
- Thread starter TomVols
- Start date
- Status
It would be interesting to hear what his fellow translators think about that statement of his.
The old NIV is what you are apparently referencing. The term "poster-child" has a negative connotations -- which I am sure you didn't mean to convey.
Again, I'm not sure what your target is here. The old NIV,the TNIV or the 2011 NIV which you haven't even seen.
Let's suppose you are referring to the TNIV. It is most assuredly a mediating translation,but leaning more towards formal equivalence than the old NIV.
The op said the NIV, not the TNIV or 2011NIV. The NIV. THAT is what I was referring to. The NIV.
And "poster-child" has a NEGATIVE connotation??? I'm missing something. That has been in the vernacular now for decades and moved way beyond any tie to negative.
A posterchild might originally have been some victim of a disease whose picture is used on posters or other media as part of a campaign to raise money or enlist volunteers for a cause or organization.
But "poster child is used in the common vernacular for a person (or organization) whose attributes or behavior are emblematic of a known cause, movement, circumstance or ideal." Under this usage, the person in question is labeled as an embodiment or archetype. This signifies that the very identity of the subject is synonymous with the associated ideal.
(Forgive me, I'm retired, but still a professor at heart. Words change and meanings evolve with our common useage.)
And "poster-child" has a NEGATIVE connotation??? I'm missing something. That has been in the vernacular now for decades and moved way beyond any tie to negative.
A posterchild might originally have been some victim of a disease whose picture is used on posters or other media as part of a campaign to raise money or enlist volunteers for a cause or organization.
But "poster child is used in the common vernacular for a person (or organization) whose attributes or behavior are emblematic of a known cause, movement, circumstance or ideal." Under this usage, the person in question is labeled as an embodiment or archetype. This signifies that the very identity of the subject is synonymous with the associated ideal.
(Forgive me, I'm retired, but still a professor at heart. Words change and meanings evolve with our common useage.)
Old professors never die. Their lectures live on in the hearts of their students.
Great, I get to agree with Bill Mounce. :type:
Why would you not :thumbs:
Rippon, I can name former NIV translators who'd agree with him. Again, whether they're right or not is up for opinion. Remember that "Mediating," "essentially literal," and "optimal equivalence" are all creations of the marketing arms of the various translations. Labeling is in the eye of the labeler
You're wrong. Just google it. Corey Haim deemed poster child for drug addiction. Rangel is the poster child for term limits.
Of course it has negative connotations.
You believe that the NIV is a weak translation. You think the mindset of the NIV is totally Dynamic Equivalence.
Using the term "poster child" was meant to portary the NIV in a poor light. Be honest.
I know you think that the NIV exemplifies dynamic equivalence. You are entirely mistaken, but you are sincere.
Please do.
Remember that "Mediating," "essentially literal," and "optimal equivalence" are all creations of the marketing arms of the various translations. Labeling is in the eye of the labeler
Glenn J.Kerr reviewed an article by James Price. Kerr stated:"Optimal Equivalence Theory does not lend itself easily to a simple definition,and Price's glossary entry could easily be applied to Dynamic Equivalence,Functional Equivalence, or Meaning-based theory."
I still find it incredible that at this late date, with all the information avalable that anyone would call the NIV/TNIV a dynamic-equivalence translation.
The Preface of the NIV/TNIV doesn't so much as mention it. Eugene Nida,to my knowledge has never called the NIV dynamic. The term should be reserved for the likes of the TEV(GNB).He was instrumental in its creation. Versions such as the NCV,CEV and the NLTse are actually dynamic.The NLTse less so than the TEV,NCV and CEV.
The NIV/TNIV have much more in common with the NASBU.
I had a thread in the past comparing the GNB(TEV) with the TNIV. There was no comparison. Yet for the ones who lump the NIV/TNIV in with the dynamic versions they should take note. If there is little similarity -- why continue the broadbrushing?
Here are some men who have not called the NIV dynamic:
Rod Decker
Donald Burdick
Sake Kubo and Walter Specht
J.William Johnson
Philip Comfort
Kenneth L.Barker
Marten Woudstra
Ron Rhoades
Sarrell L.Bock
Gordon Fee
Mark Strauss
Honorable mention:Rick Mansfield
I have quoted them in the last few years on the BB. They are knowledgeable individuals.
The Preface of the NIV/TNIV doesn't so much as mention it. Eugene Nida,to my knowledge has never called the NIV dynamic. The term should be reserved for the likes of the TEV(GNB).He was instrumental in its creation. Versions such as the NCV,CEV and the NLTse are actually dynamic.The NLTse less so than the TEV,NCV and CEV.
The NIV/TNIV have much more in common with the NASBU.
I had a thread in the past comparing the GNB(TEV) with the TNIV. There was no comparison. Yet for the ones who lump the NIV/TNIV in with the dynamic versions they should take note. If there is little similarity -- why continue the broadbrushing?
Here are some men who have not called the NIV dynamic:
Rod Decker
Donald Burdick
Sake Kubo and Walter Specht
J.William Johnson
Philip Comfort
Kenneth L.Barker
Marten Woudstra
Ron Rhoades
Sarrell L.Bock
Gordon Fee
Mark Strauss
Honorable mention:Rick Mansfield
I have quoted them in the last few years on the BB. They are knowledgeable individuals.
Ah, yes, Rippon once more seeking to get me involved so he can.... But his motive is irrelevant.
Anyway, your information is inaccurate. First of all Kerr's review was not of an article by Price, but of his magnum opus, a book: A Theory for Bible Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model.
Secondly, in spite of your quote, Kerr understands quite well that optimal equivalence is certainly not dynamic equivalence. Kerr wrote in the same review: "As a Bible translator, I find this theory appealing in every way, charting as it does an alternative to the current frustrations in the translation community as to how Relevance Theory (which concerns oral communication, non-verbal communication, and pragmatics) can be applied to an ancient written text. It is also a welcome alternative to translation theories that deal almost exclusively with semantics (read dynamic equivalence here--JoJ) and ignore the structural equivalence issues."
As for the NIV being a DE translation, Dr. Price over and over quotes DE renderings from the NIV in his book, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation.
P. S. If anyone wants to read Dr. Kerr's rave review (contra Rippon) of Dr. Price's book, here it is: http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Kerr_review-b.doc
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, yes, Rippon once more seeking to get me involved so he can.... But his motive is irrelevant.
LOL! Relax guy.
Sorry about that.
How is it possible that anyone would draw the conclusion that Kerr confuses Optimal Equivalence with Dynamic Equivalence?
He merely said that Price's definition of Optimal Equivalence could apply to a variety of translational methods.
He is certainly entitled to disagree with fellow Bible scholars on that score.
I didn't suggest that Dr.Kerr was knocking Price's work. You get yourself all worked up over small potatoes. I had quoted Kerr's remarks over eight months ago and you apparently didn't take offence then.
The English Bible From KJV to NIV by Jack Lewis
This book was originally published in 1981. In it he had a 35 page of the NIV.
"The NIV has attempted to steer a middle course between the excessive literalness of the NASB on the one hand and the excessive paraphrases of Phillips,the REB and Taylor on the other. Loyalty to the text has been defined in terms of a compromise between the Dynamic Equivalence principle and literalness..."
This book was originally published in 1981. In it he had a 35 page of the NIV.
"The NIV has attempted to steer a middle course between the excessive literalness of the NASB on the one hand and the excessive paraphrases of Phillips,the REB and Taylor on the other. Loyalty to the text has been defined in terms of a compromise between the Dynamic Equivalence principle and literalness..."
A flash from the past to inform folks of the preent!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Never heard of him but I get to agree also!:godisgood:
He is a translator of the 2011 NIV and the ESV.
Do you understand the meaning of translator? One who translates. The NIV is a translation. You may be in the world's smallest minority denying the obvious.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The NIV is a Dynamic Equivalence representation of what the Word of God tells us, in simpler words a Brief Paraphrase. The NIV may contain the Word of God [An old liberal expression.] if one can find it but it cannot be called the Word of God.
You really need to "Chill Out" as the young folks say Rippon. No need to get all upset just because you have been shown incorrect. Happens to everyone on occasion. There has been only one perfect man on earth!
[snipped - we will not allow anyone to question the salvation of another BB member, whether you think their positions are correct or not]
What other English Bible versions do you deny being the Word of God?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status