• 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!

KVJ Is Not Literal, but Functional Equivalent

Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am thinking more about this. I have always considered the KJV as a formal equivalence translation, not a dynamic equivalence. Mounce makes a good point that all translations are interpretive, it is the type of interpretive steps that makes a translation as word-for-word as possible or thought-for-thought.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Reformed said:
I am thinking more about this. I have always considered the KJV as a formal equivalence translation, not a dynamic equivalence. Mounce makes a good point that all translations are interpretive, it is the type of interpretive steps that makes a translation as word-for-word as possible or thought-for-thought.
Click to expand...
I've heard that the KJV translators sought to make the text poetic as well which would lend it to being more functional.
 
Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Did anyone figure out what Mounce's point was, for saying:

"They was not marked for gender in Elizabethan English (check out Shakespeare) "
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jerome said:
I just read an interesting article by Bill Mounce that puts the KJV in the formal category of translations and not the functional or dynamic. Thoughts?

How Many Categories of Translations are There? | billmounce.com
Click to expand...
That he has changed his mind or can't make up his mind?
3. Functional (or dynamic) Equivalence...The NIV, CSB, and KJV fit into this camp.
Click to expand...
2. Formal equivalent...This category includes the NASB, ESV, CSB [to some extent], KJV, RSV, and NRSV (except for gender language).
Click to expand...
Can anyone tell the time sequence on these? All I see is a month and day of month, which no year?
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jerome said:
Did anyone figure out what Mounce's point was, for saying:

"They was not marked for gender in Elizabethan English (check out Shakespeare) "
Click to expand...
That the pronoun "they" was used in Elizabethan English/Shakespeare for either singular or plural, so that it was used instead of he or she to keep from using a gender pronoun. Or something like that.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Every English Bible translation MUST use some formal equivalence to make sense in English due to language differences.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed said:
My introductory Greek class used Mounce's "Basics of Biblical Greek". Textbook aside, I think he is wrong on his opinion of the KJV even though the KJV is not my daily reader.
Click to expand...
There are places where it does indeed translate functionally into English, but so does even the nas, so would still be overall a formal translation!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed said:
I am thinking more about this. I have always considered the KJV as a formal equivalence translation, not a dynamic equivalence. Mounce makes a good point that all translations are interpretive, it is the type of interpretive steps that makes a translation as word-for-word as possible or thought-for-thought.
Click to expand...
All translation use a bit of formal/functional in their process, but the question would be on which side do they mainly end up being on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top