That is correct. The difference between a more literal translation and a dynamic translation is not the source it is translated ( as has been espoused in this thread) from but the philosophy behind how they 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!
If You or Your Church Switched from NIV to ESV....Why?
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
That is correct. The difference between a more literal translation and a dynamic translation is not the source it is translated ( as has been espoused in this thread) from but the philosophy behind how they do it.
There is no such thing as a word for word translation, just varying degrees of dynamic.
'More literal' IS dynamic, as is any given philosophical approach. Word for word is a misnomer.
That is just false. There is a distinct difference. The translators of versions like the ESV would disagree with you. The link I posted made a clear case and showed the distinct differences. You show you do not really understand the translation philosophies. Just because you do not personally like the use of a more literal translation does not impose dynamic on them or any other translation.
Last edited by a moderator:
think that those espousing the more Dynamic approach to translatingrealise that there might be some inherit problems in that way, so seek to minimize any differeneces between say the Niv and esv, but hard to do that with either Nkjv/Nasb, as quite a bit different from say Niv!
Last edited by a moderator:
You're wrong RM. All Bible versions have to do a lot of restructuring. Sometimes one word in the original would have to be translated with a sentence or more. All sorts of variations come about. There is no one-to-one correspondence. The supposed "gulf" between the ESV and NIV regarding translational methodology is scant --regardless of ESV press reports and its Preface. In the actual translations themselves there are more commonalities than differences. My main complaint through the years here has been about the stilted and unnatural language of the ESV. However,it's philosophy and that of the NIV are nearly the same in the two texts.
That is exactly right. The Dynamic approach is seen as inferior and it is because it is more of a paraphrase rather than a translation.
No its not.
Think the BIG difference between say the Nasb/Nkjv and to a lessor extent the esv, as contrasted with the Niv, is that those others versions strive to keep the literal as much as possible, while the Niv does that when seen as necessary!
The NIV places more importance on readability over staying as true as possible to the sources. I find this offensive and inferior.
It is"seen as inferior" by those who are ill-informed. If you are targeting the NLT with your "more of a paraphrase rather than a translation" remark you're seriously out of touch. Have you ever considered the calibre of men who translated it?
it is not as accurate as either the Nasb/Esv though, as the intent of the translators was not to make another "study version", but one that would be easier than those others to read and understand!
Define accuracy. The NASB and ESV may not qualify in all categories when it comes to accuracy criteria.
Are you talking about study Bibles, or the texts of various versions?
I do understand, and apparently not the only one here that does who disagrees. If anything, you stating "The Dynamic approach is seen as inferior and it is because it is more of a paraphrase rather than a translation" leads me to believe you are not fully grasping the philosophies.
its intent is to provide a more readable version that is "acceptably accurate!"
the intent of the Niv translation team was/is to make a readable version that is acceptably accurate, while the Nasb team wante dto reflect as close as possible inEnglish what was wriiten to us, even if inferior in style and reading !
It's humorous how you close your final sentences in posts. Almost invariably you end your last line with an exclamation mark --as if you have said something very significant.
Of couse the NIV team wanted to reflect as close as possible in English what was written by the original authors.
Are so-called formal-equivalent translations to be commended for being inferior in style and reading? Certainly not. Wouldn't you think that the original audiences of these books of the New Testament read them in a style that was used in the vernacular of the time? Some versions today by virtue of their translational style deliberately use language that is awkward,stilted and unnatural. That alone is not being faithful to the original texts.
what is most important though in a faithful translation?
To be accurate to what the original writers intended/meant. or else to be able to be read easier and smoother fashion?
The NIV and other mediating versions try to maintain a balance. They attempt to be as faithful as possible to the originals and endeavor to "speak" in understandable,normal English.
You still haven't answered me regarding your pastor's use of the 2011 NIV. Have you ever discussed your negative views of the translation with him?
no, for I am not a "niv hater", just one that holds that while it is the word of God to us in English, it is NOT as accurate to the original language texts as ay the Nasb/Nkjv would be, and do see esv/HCSB/NIV all in about same category regarding how they translated the Greek/Hebrew texts!
he would see things as you do, as he prefers theNiv, and likes the Nasb, just to 'wooden and literal" for him, as he sees esv as a smoother version to use, compared to Nasb...
I don't see it as a divisive issue, as NEITHER of us are one version only!