1. 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!

How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Feb 8, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 5
  1. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Andy's my brother, actually. But he's not here.

    I don't remember you ever defining DE for me, and I don't remember you ever giving me your criteria for determining what is a DE rendering and what is not.
     
    #21 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  2. MNJacob

    MNJacob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dynamic equivalence - thought for thought,

    Formal equivalence - sentence for sentence, since word for word is nearly impossible.
     
    #22 MNJacob, Feb 10, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2009
  3. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bible Translation Type: Formal Equivalence (word-for-word)
    Acronym Name Publication Date
    KJV
    AV King James Version
    (also known as Authorized Version) 1611
    YLT Young's Literal Translation 1862 (Revised 1887, 1898)
    ASV American Standard Version 1901
    MLB
    NBV Modern Language Bible
    also known as New Berkley Version 1959 (NT - 1945; NT revised 1969)
    BBE Bible in Basic English 1965
    NASB New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1971 (NT - 1963; Revised 1996)
    NKJV New King James Version 1982
    NRSV New Revised Standard Version 1990
    KJ21 Twenty-First Century King James Version 1994 (NT - 1992)


    Bible Translation Type: Dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought)
    Acronym Name Publication Date
    WIL Williams New Testament in the Language of the People 1937; Reprinted 2000 as Millennium edition.
    (See http://www.sprawls.org/williams/)
    JPB J.B. Phillips New Testament in Modern English 1958 (Revised 1972)
    GNB
    TEV Good News Bible
    also known as Todays English Version 1974 (NT - 1966; Revised 1993)
    NIV New International Version 1978 (NT - 1973)
    ICB
    NCV International Children's Bible
    New Century Version 1986 (NT - 1978)
    CEV Contemporary English Version 1995 (NT - 1991)
    NIrV New International Reader's Version (NIrV) 1996
    NLT New Living Translation 1996
     
    #23 Baptist4life, Feb 10, 2009
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is the difference between "thought for thought" and "sentence for sentence?" A thought is usually stated in a sentence.

    Your definitions do not seem to indicate any clear differences between the two.
     
    #24 Logos1560, Feb 10, 2009
  5. MNJacob

    MNJacob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    2
    From the Introduction to the HCSB found at Bible Gateway
     
    #25 MNJacob, Feb 10, 2009
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I really do not like the phraselogy of "thought-for-thought".It really means, as Logos said, sentence for sentence or even phrase for phrase.That was John Purvey's method of translating the second Wycliffe Bible too.
     
    #26 Rippon, Feb 10, 2009
  7. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The trouble is that none of the above are actually word-for-word.Consult the unreadable Young's Interlinear for that purpose.That's the only one on your list that belongs there.

    The MLB which is a favorite of mine isn't as formally-equivalent as many versions listed here.

    I have never seen the BBE,but I sincerely doubt that it would qualify as being in the more formally-equivalent versions much less considered word-for-word!

    [/quote]

    The above is really sloppy.To lump the NIV in with Phillips,TEV (which used to be known as GNB -- they are not distinct versions)NCV and CEV is just plain absurd.Of course Leland Ryken would agree with this classification -- which proves he doesn't know what he's talking about.
     
    #27 Rippon, Feb 10, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2009
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "To reach the impossible dream ...!"




    I do not see how this differs from the translational methodology of the other mediating versions such as the TNIV.Of course the TNIV team didn't call their translational philosophy "optimal equivalence".
     
    #28 Rippon, Feb 10, 2009
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nice try, but no cigar. The concept of "thought for thought" has been around since the ancient Greek poets, and Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate Bible, wrote about it in "To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating" in AD 395. If this were all Dynamic Equivalence was, Nida would have innovated nothing in 1964.
     
    #29 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is better. The key element here is that "dynamic equivalence seeks to translate the meaning of biblical words so the text makes the same impact on modern readers that the ancient text made on its original readers." This is what no one has mentioned until now, and what I've been waiting for.
     
    #30 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  11. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Aw,why don't you hand out kewpie dolls instead of cigars?They're EdSutton's favorites.
     
    #31 Rippon, Feb 10, 2009
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Neither Rippon nor TCGreek have responded to my challenge to define DE. I believe I have the right to then conclude that neither one of them can clearly define the method, though Rippon continues to pontificate on this thread.

    Thus, here is my definition:

    Dynamic Equivalence (DE, or functional equivalence) is a theory of translation developed by Eugene Nida, beginning with his 1964 book Towards a Science of Translation. As opposed to a theology based method, DE is based on linguistics and existentialism, and instead of working to discern authorial intent this method is characterized by an effort to produce an equivalent effect in the target audience to that produced in the original audience, and it also emphasizes the importance of meaning over grammatical form.
     
    #32 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don't have 'em in Japan.
     
    #33 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  14. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are so very wrong.If you would just look at the conservative credentials of the NLTse translators you would repent in burlap and ashes.

    Charging them with being existentialists!Nonsense.

    Is every functionally-equivalent Bible based on existentialism?

    Do you still insist that the NIV/TNIV is to be lumped in the dynamic category of the TEV?! Do you still think that translators of dynamic versions deny verbal-plenary inspiration?If so I want you to turn in your translator keys to me tomorrow at 7 AM sharp.
     
    #34 Rippon, Feb 10, 2009
  15. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think the existentialist part is included in the secular understanding of dynamic equivalence....This method of translaton does cross over to the secular world too.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #35 Jim1999, Feb 10, 2009
  16. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    #36 Marcia, Feb 10, 2009
  17. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I never said they were not conservative. You are twisting my words. That's not my point at all. I've never even accused Eugene Nida of being a liberal. But the fact remains, he based his method on linguistics and philosophy, not on theology. Have you actually read any of his books? Go to the first chapters of Toward a Science of Translating where he lays the ground work and find some theology. There is none in the whole book! His Ph. D. was in linguistics, and he never even took a master's in theology or Biblical studies.
    Here you go again, twisting my words. I called no one, no translator, an existentialist but Nida. It is very clear that he based his theories at least partly on existentialism. See Toward a Science of Translating (p. 7, where he specifically cites Wittgenstein the existentialist), Religion Across Cultures (pp. 55-56). Then, here is what his colleague Philip Stine said in his book about Nida's work:

    "Nida drew on the existentialist philosophers, particularly Ludwig Wittgenstein, who held that the meaning of any word is a matter of what we do with our language. Knowing the meaning of a word can involve knowing to what objects (if any) it refers, recognizing whether the word is slang or figurative language, knowing what part of speech it is, and also being aware of its connotative values. Essentially, then, to oversimplify somewhat, the meaning of a word stems from its use. Functional equivalence as an approach to translation depends on this idea" (Let the Words Be Written, 143-144).

    So I'm not talking out of school here. Nida's defender says he based his work on existentialism.
    To the exact extent that they depend on Nida's theories.
    Stop twisting my words. That is dishonest. I have never ever said that any translator denied verbal plenary inspiration.
     
    #37 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yep, I think I covered it very thoroughly, but Rippon has a short memory.
     
    #38 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jim, the existential basis of Nida's work was clear from the start in his first book on DE in 1964. Look above where I note that he discusses Wittgenstein on p. 7 of that book.
     
    #39 John of Japan, Feb 10, 2009
  20. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    His name is not a household name to me. Existentialism is. I do recall reading something about it in the understanding of DE in secular translating..Just thought I would mention that. It was an essential part of German rationalism and even Barth.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #40 Jim1999, Feb 10, 2009
Page 2 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...