The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

[SovereignGrace]

For those out of the loop like me...

What’s the difference betwixt DE & FE?

 

[Rippon]

His viewpoint in regards to the Niv at times seems to borders on NIVO!

You and MM specialize in stupid remarks like the above.

As he has belittles the Kjv,

I do not rank it as one of the best translations for people of the 20th and 21st centuries. If that's your understanding of belittling the KJV. But, of course since you don't have much of a command of English, I can see why you would say such a thing.

I often compare Bible versions as you should know. In the thread called Face Off Between The KJV And NIV you should get an accurate idea of how I feel about the KJV. Look at the many quotes of prominent folks of the past and present.

and as stated that Esv/Nkjv worse than the Niv 2011,

I have said numerous times that both are serviceable versions with God-honoring men behind those translations.

My main complaint has always been the poor English of both.

 

[Rippon]

whenever complaints against Niv given, just disregards as one not knowing the issues, stuck in the past, or believing in the fake Christian feminism movement behind Niv 2011!

You have borne false witness against the NIV for years on end here and in other forums. You never acknowledge that you are engaging in falsehoods. You hardly ever answer pointed and simple questions. You quote entire posts of mine without engaging in a whit of the content. You just evade constantly. You don't do any homework. You resort to links that either have nothing to do with the subject at-hand, --they are broken or contradict what you assert. You never admit any of the above.

You have tossed the NIV and CSB aside with absurd remarks that are completely uncharacteristic of a Christian.

If you want to be reminded of the lies you have said I can furnish quotes of yours in the next 24 hours.

 

[John of Japan]

For those out of the loop like me...

What’s the difference betwixt DE & FE?

Please see my Post #21 for some scholarly definitions. However, on this thread, DE is mostly being used in the popular sense of free translation: paying more attention to transferring the meaning to the target ("receptor" in DE) language.

The meaning Eugene Nida (Nigh da), the inventor of DE, had for the term is to transfer the meaning in such a way that the modern reader has the same reaction (thus, "receptor") as the original reader. More recent authors talk more about transferring the meaning rather than the grammatical forms (not necessarily mutually exclusive). Being disappointed at how his term was hijacked by the populace to mean "paraphrase," he changed the name of his method to "functional equivalence."

In DE terms, FE is when the forms (grammatical and semantic) of the original must be transferred whenever possible. DE advocates mock this, saying that by transferring the forms you lose meaning. I disagree. The original forms have meaning. Therefore, I prefer the term optimal equivalence.

 

[Rippon]

In DE terms, FE is when the forms (grammatical and semantic) of the original must be transferred whenever possible.

No, has to be altered at times when the meaning is obscured by retaining the form.

DE advocates mock this, saying that by transferring the forms you lose meaning. I disagree.

Care to give quotes where N.T. Bible scholars/translators to this mocking? Didn't think so.

The original forms have meaning.

At times, but meaning doesn't mean form necessarily.

Therefore, I prefer the term optimal equivalence.

Which is not a magical formula to plug in. It's a marketing ploy --nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Yeshua1]

Listen, why can't you try to tell the truth every so often? Is it that hard?

The LEB, Darby, WEB, NET, Mounce, NLT,NIV, RSV, MEV,NRSV and CSB all do not have the word propitiation in some of the four passages that do have it in the NASB and NLKJ.

It's not as if the translators of these eleven versions do not believe in the concept of propitiation or believe that it makes it would make God seem to cruel to Jesus. It's that the translators wanted to communicate meaning to the reader. No one word or groups of words may satisfactorily explain what happened on this transaction of the cross. All English words will miss the mark. Unless you would prefer and expanded translation that the NCV has --all English versions will come up short in this respect.

I prefer to keep the intended term the Spirit Himself decided to have recorded down to us, and we need to educate Christians to what those theological terms mean, and not just edit them out!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have borne false witness against the NIV for years on end here and in other forums. You never acknowledge that you are engaging in falsehoods. You hardly ever answer pointed and simple questions. You quote entire posts of mine without engaging in a whit of the content. You just evade constantly. You don't do any homework. You resort to links that either have nothing to do with the subject at-hand, --they are broken or contradict what you assert. You never admit any of the above.

You have tossed the NIV and CSB aside with absurd remarks that are completely uncharacteristic of a Christian.

If you want to be reminded of the lies you have said I can furnish quotes of yours in the next 24 hours.

I have never stated that the Csb or Niv were not legit translations, that godly scholars were involved in their translation, but I have agreed with many that the Niv 2011 especially went too far in how they handles the gender issues in the scriptures.
And also have always stated my preference for a formal translation.

 

[Rippon]

I prefer to keep the intended term the Spirit Himself decided to have recorded down to us, and we need to educate Christians to what those theological terms mean, and not just edit them out!

The Holy Spirit did not dictate in English. The word propitiation is not "the term the Holy Spirit Himself decided to have recorded down to us" as you put it. Think rationally.

Go to a commentary to see what it means. No translation can do a perfect job --all translations are limited.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please see my Post #21 for some scholarly definitions. However, on this thread, DE is mostly being used in the popular sense of free translation: paying more attention to transferring the meaning to the target ("receptor" in DE) language.

The meaning Eugene Nida (Nigh da), the inventor of DE, had for the term is to transfer the meaning in such a way that the modern reader has the same reaction (thus, "receptor") as the original reader. More recent authors talk more about transferring the meaning rather than the grammatical forms (not necessarily mutually exclusive). Being disappointed at how his term was hijacked by the populace to mean "paraphrase," he changed the name of his method to "functional equivalence."

In DE terms, FE is when the forms (grammatical and semantic) of the original must be transferred whenever possible. DE advocates mock this, saying that by transferring the forms you lose meaning. I disagree. The original forms have meaning. Therefore, I prefer the term optimal equivalence.

I think that the main concerns is with jsut how much of a translation is rendering over, and how much is interpreting the text? And also, how much of a seen need to have the "parochial" atmosphere, the male headship assumed in the scriptures, to be redone and more conforming to present culture understandings?

 

[John of Japan]

I think that the main concerns is with jsut how much of a translation is rendering over, and how much is interpreting the text?

The line between translation and interpretation is sometimes very vague. What most translators understand is that translation is more of an art than a science (contra Nida).

And also, how much of a seen need to have the "parochial" atmosphere, the male headship assumed in the scriptures, to be redone and more conforming to present culture understandings?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Do you mean "patriarchal"?

 

[Rippon]

I have never stated that the Csb or Niv were not legit translations, that godly scholars were involved in their translation, but I have agreed with many that the Niv 2011 especially went too far in how they handles the gender issues in the scriptures.
And also have always stated my preference for a formal translation.

Y1, you stated on 12/19/2017 the following:

"That is my main concern with some of the latest translations such as CSB and NIV, as they at times seem to go into adding feminine material into their renderings, such as making it seem like women can teach and even be apostles!"

First of all, you meant feminist, not feminine.

Secondly, it sounds like you object to women teaching women. Do you?

But you most likely meant that these two translations allow women to teach men and can even be apostles. And that sentiment of yours is pure bunk. It's absolutely false. You know it. But you regularly engage in falsehoods. You need to repent of it.

 

[Yeshua1]

The line between translation and interpretation is sometimes very vague. What most translators understand is that translation is more of an art than a science (contra Nida).

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Do you mean "patriarchal"?

The line between translation and interpretation is sometimes very vague. What most translators understand is that translation is more of an art than a science (contra Nida).

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Do you mean "patriarchal"?

Yes, my mistake, as some seemed to be wanting to revise the scriptures in order to be accommodating current cultural views regarding roles and position of men and women in the Church/ as seeing somehow the scriptures were too"patriarchal"

 

[Rippon]

Yes, my mistake, as some seemed to be wanting to revise the scriptures in order to be accommodating current cultural views regarding roles and position of men and women in the Church/

There you go again. What is your compulsion to do what you do habitually?

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, my mistake, as some seemed to be wanting to revise the scriptures in order to be accommodating current cultural views regarding roles and position of men and women in the Church/ as seeing somehow the scriptures were too"patriarchal"

Okay, got it. That's a complicated subject, and I'll not get into it here. One really must be competent in Greek and/or Hebrew to make sense of it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Y1, you stated on 12/19/2017 the following:

"That is my main concern with some of the latest translations such as CSB and NIV, as they at times seem to go into adding feminine material into their renderings, such as making it seem like women can teach and even be apostles!"

First of all, you meant feminist, not feminine.

Secondly, it sounds like you object to women teaching women. Do you?

But you most likely meant that these two translations allow women to teach men and can even be apostles. And that sentiment of yours is pure bunk. It's absolutely false. You know it. But you regularly engage in falsehoods. You need to repent of it.

My concern is with allowing women to be Elders/pastors of a local church, and do indeed see the N

Okay, got it. That's a complicated subject, and I'll not get into it here. One really must be competent in Greek and/or Hebrew to make sense of it.

Do you prefer the way the Nkjv/Nas deals with this issue in translation is done, or how theNiv/Nrsv has dealt with it?

 

[John of Japan]

My concern is with allowing women to be Elders/pastors of a local church, and do indeed see the N

It is literally impossible to translate those passages honestly and allow female pastors, because they are written to contrast men and women.

Do you prefer the way the Nkjv/Nas deals with this issue in translation is done, or how theNiv/Nrsv has dealt with it?

I'm an NKJV man.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is literally impossible to translate those passages honestly and allow female pastors, because they are written to contrast men and women.

I'm an NKJV man.

So you do see a problem with how those last 2 translations treated this?

 

[John of Japan]

So you do see a problem with how those last 2 translations treated this?

What translations and what passage?

 

[Yeshua1]

What translations and what passage?

Niv 2011 Psalms 8:4, and 1 Timothy 2:12
Same verses for the nrsv

 

[Rippon]

Psalm 8:4

NET : Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them?

NLT : What are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them?

CEB : What are human beings that you think about them. What are human beings that you pay attention to them?

NRSV : What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?
______________________________________________________________________________________________

In the NET Notes it says that the singular noun is used here in a collective sense and refers to the human race.

I have gone through the same subject with Y1 dozens of times and he is not interested in learning.

The term son of man many times does not refer to Christ. It means humanity.