C4K said:Now thats a unique post - a poster quoting and praising his own post?!?!?
Hey, if he's not gooing to toot his own horn I doubt anyone else will do it.
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!
C4K said:Now thats a unique post - a poster quoting and praising his own post?!?!?
TCGreek said:Keith M,
What is a dynamic equivalent version of the Bible? Maybe we need to start there.
The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.
Keith M said:Hey, if he's not gooing {sic}to toot his own horn I doubt anyone else will do it.
Keith M said:And as for those who like to lebel {sic}the NIV as something other than a dynamic equivalence translation, here's what the preface to the NIV has to say:
Rippon said:Again,no mention whatsoever of dynamic-equivalence.
annsni said:And the term "Trinity" isn't in the Bible.
Keith M said:The dynamic equivalence method of translation tries to get the thought of the original writers without being as much a word-for-word translation as the KJVs and the NASBs. Of course we all know there's no way to achieve 100% accuracy in a literal translation. In translating from one language into another, there has to be a little dynamic equivalence used in order for the translation to make sense to its target market.
What's all the fuss about my preferences? Am I not as entitled to my preferences as anyone else here?
And as for those who like to lebel the NIV as something other than a dynamic equivalence translation, here's what the preface to the NIV has to say:
TC, no offense, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. Ever since the NIV first came out it has been hailed as a DE translation. Ryken calls it a DE translation in his book (pp. 54, 59, etc.) to give just one scholar.TCGreek said:Keith M,
I trust the judgment of those who are in the translation business. No serious scholar or translator has listed the NIV as a dynamic equivalence translation.
The T/NIV is more on the formal side than on the dynamic equivalence.
John of Japan said:TC, no offense, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. Ever since the NIV first came out it has been hailed as a DE translation. Ryken calls it a DE translation in his book (pp. 54, 59, etc.) to give just one scholar.
The intro to the 1983 edition I have says that the translators "have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the Bible demands frequent modificaiotns in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words." This is close to being a definition of dynamic equivalence. If you want me to I can take you through a chapter of the NIV and show you step by step how it is a DE translation.
Many other scholars have said the NIV is DE. In fact, I'd be interested if you've come across a scholar who says it's not!TCGreek said:John of Japan, no offense, but Ryken is no authority on Bible translation.
He has an ESV-agenda.
John of Japan said:Many other scholars have said the NIV is DE. In fact, I'd be interested if you've come across a scholar who says it's not!