Hcsb

I think you are getting a little heavy here John. This subject of what translations can be considered DE and which ones are not is something that can be reasoned-out.

If most N.T. scholars say one way or the other than it is pretty well settled. This is not like Cal vs. non-Cal.

You have the idea that the HCSB is somehow on the blessed terrain of Optimal Equivalence and that the 2011 NIV rests on the shaky ground of Dynamic Equivalence.

I have always insisted that both translations are in the mediating territory. There is not a whole lot that separates them in reality. They have much more in common than what divides them.

The makers of the HCSB market it with the catch-phrase of Optimal Equivalence. But there is nothing magical about it. The Method of O.P. can also be applied to the ISV,NAB, 2011 NIV and NET to a certain extent.

 

Wow, you haven't read much in the theological journals have you? (Let me see, is there a way I can comment tactfully?) This statement is baloney. (Nope, guess not.)

 

Tell me briefly what in the world you are talkin' bout.

 

If you had read much at all in the theological journals you would know that a majority of opinion in theology means diddly squat. Same in the area of translations.

 

I think that you are ulta-biased against anything NIV. You can't recognize any redeeming qualities in the 2011 NIV. You think that if a translator plugs in the magical Optimal Equivalence maximizer then out comes the very best English translation that could be (And by the way,it should be worlds away from the rendering of the 2011 NIV.If the wording is similar then we made a mistake somewhere.Our optimizer minimized somehow):smilewinkgrin:

I would think that in the area of translation there would be more of a consensus rather than discord regarding what constitutes a DE translation and what versions do not qualify as DE. All versions use DE to an extent. But as a major method of translating --an overriding principle --the 2011 NIV does not qualify anymore than the HCSB does.

 

And you are his polar opposite. You are biased for the NIV at the expense of any other translation.

Not a problem, we love both of you anyway.:smilewinkgrin:

 

You know what? I don't even care about anything NIV. I really don't care if it's DE or not, it's not in Japanese and so has no effect whatsoever on my ministry. I never even think about the NIV except when I see you mention it here. I did the research here one time on the BB that convinced me it was DE, but other than that, I don't even care. It's not on my radar.

And the time I clearly defined DE here on the BB, not only did you not object at first, you did not give your own definition. So frankly, since then I've figured that you just don't know what you are talking about, so why bother?

 

Just a question here... Do you understand what the translators mean when they say "optimal equivalence?" I would be interested to know, for I know several of the men who did the translation work personally and have had conversations with them about the means they used to do the work (and yes, they did "translate" every word).

Here is another very interesting link for those who would like to watch a debate between some of the participants of translation for three versions:

http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2011/10/lu-biblical-studies-symposium-ray.html

 

That was very interesting. Thanks for posting. I was impressed with each speaker and convinced that each truly desired an accurate yet readable text. They all appeared to me to be fine Christian men with honest intentions. It was also eye opening to hear how the different translation methods are done and made me see how utterly complicated it is to translate something as important as the bible from one language to another. It is no easy task. I have a much better appreciation for translators.

 

All are good (great!) men and the translations they represent are great translations, but each has a certain emphasis or means and to ignore that might do a disservice overall.

The discussion does sort of work contra to some of Rippon's blathering on the subject, however.

 

Now you know that is completely false Mexdeaf. You know of many threads that I have devoted to many other versions outside of the NIV which I admire. Or maybe you have forgotten :the MLB,NLTse,Norlie,REB etc.

 

Am I under orders to respond to everything you say about your private interpretation of DE?

Like it or not,dynamic Equivalence is not solely something that has to abide by the rules and principles of Eugene Nida. It was around long before he came on the scene. Jerome, Purvey and Luther used it in their translations.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so presumptuous there missionary JoJ.

 

I wish you would have more appreciation for consistency. You show respect for the HCSB translation team --as do I. But the same consideration you find hard to extend to the 2011 NIV translation team. You have still chosen not to explain why you have said slanderous things about the translation --and hence the team.

They made the attempt to do that,as do all translation teams. But some things are left untranslated in all Bible versions. It's not evil,;it's just the way things are with imperfect trtanslations.

 

So you pastor,huh?

Deal specifically with what I have said that you disagree with and why.

 

The link doesn't work here in the Mainland. However,I saw/listened to about 75% of the whole thing. It was interesting in particular that some number of questions that audience members had for Doug Moo (head of the NIV team) were deflected because of ignorance of the questioner --even to the point of quoting things allegedly from the 2011 NIV that were not even in the text!

Grudem seems to have calmed down somewhat from his seek and destroy mission years back regarding the TNIV. I noticed he was agreeing with a lot of things Dr.Moo was saying.

Grudem also said (if my memory serves me)that if it was up to him "brothers and sisters" would have been in the text,instead of the footnotes --but he was outvoted. In my count several years back there were 151 times where the footnotes would say "Or,brothers and sisters."

 

I'll believe this when you give me quotes from Jerome, Purvey and Luther promoting reader response theory, the linchpin of DE. Barring that, you have once again proved you don't understand DE by mixing it up with thought-for-thought.

 

Dear John,you just don't get it,do you? What is generally known as DE or Functional Equivalence in modern times was employed in times past by the above translators as a guiding principle.

Even modern DE versions such as NLTse,do not ascribe to all or even most of Nida's dictates. If you are willing to call the NLTse a DE translation then why?

Nida did groundbreaking work,granted,but his general method was employed long before he was born. He simply codified some principles --yet the method was already in operation centuries before without adhering to his particular propositions.

 

Testy, are we? I was speaking TIC- didn't you see the second sentence with the smiley face?

The point was, the room is big enough for the both of you.

 

I'll believe this when you give me quotes from Jerome, Purvey and Luther promoting reader response theory, the linchpin of DE. Barring that, you have once again proved you don't understand DE by mixing it up with thought-for-thought.

 

You already said all that in your post #116. And I replied in post #117. Keep up,the pace isn't that fast.:laugh: