Definitions

[Rippon2]

The NLT is not in the mediating category. Name a Bible scholar who says that.

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

 

[Rippon2]

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)

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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

 

[Garrett20]

Via email or text messages?

Old school... They fax on occasion.

 

[Rippon2]

Mediating Niv 2011/Nlt

"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?)

 

[Rippon2]

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)

 

[Rippon2]

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)

"

 

[Rippon2]

Here is a short and simple definition of optimal equivalence from the NKJV preface:

"Seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form.” Dr. Price was also the OT editor for the NKJV.

Here is my own brief definition: A method of translation which seeks the optimal expression in the target language; that is, the expression which best reproduces the form and meaning of the original, while aiming at good literary style in the target language. OE uses transformational/generational grammar to achieve this goal.

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."

 

[Rippon2]

Here is the Nida & Tabor definition of translation.

“translation: the reproduction in a receptor language of the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning, and second in terms of style” (The Theory and Practice of Translation, Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, p. 208).

Note that they say "message" instead of even saying "meaning."

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

 

[Rippon2]

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."

 

[McCree79]

The NIV is more literal than the NLT.

Considerably more literal.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

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

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

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Rippon2]

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

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.

 

[John of Japan]

I'll be quoting extensively from my treasured book The Challenge Of Bible Translation. There are a host of authors. But have no fear, I won't cite all of them.

"As with translation endeavors generally, the goal of Bible translation is to transfer the meaning of a biblical text from its source language to some other receptor language so that communication occurs. Everything else about the translation business ---- all the linguistic expertise and scholarly apparatus, the lexicons, and the software ---- is little more than scaffolding." (by Glen G. Scorgie, p.20)

This is not a definition or a discussion about it, so it is not according to the OP. Please stick to the OP, and don't make this a thread about which method is correct.

 

[John of Japan]

Via email or text messages?

Pretty sure the trinity does not do email or texting. Just verbal.

 

[John of Japan]

Glen Scorgie continues on page 26 :

"....A faithful translator is obliged to convey in clear and readable form, not only the meanings of individual words and phrases, but something also of the structure, rhythm, and emotive elements of the original text. Ultimately the 'accuracy' of a translation should be measured by the degree to which a translator has achieved all of these things."

Again, not a definition or a discussion about definitions. Please keep to the OP.

 

[John of Japan]

Moises Silva wrote the following on page 43 :

"....intensive training translating clauses and sentences that cannot be rendered word-for-word and thus require restructuring would give students an entree into the authentic character of the foreign tongue....a nonliteral translation. precisely because it may give expression to the genius of the target language (in this case English), can do greater justice to that of the source language (Greek)."

Again, not a definition. Did you read the OP?

 

[John of Japan]

The esv to me is in a unique placing, as not as "mediating" as either Csb/Niv, but not as formal as Nas/Nkjv!

This is not a definition or a discussion about one. Please stick to the OP.

 

[Rippon2]

This is not a definition or a discussion about it, so it is not according to the OP. Please stick to the OP, and don't make this a thread about which method is correct.

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.