Well, actually I know what dynamic equivalence, as applied to bible translation, means.
However, what I was pointing out is that your first statement saidBut your second statement saidSee the conflict?
Dynamic equivalence really has nothing at all to do with the evolution of the receptor language. When properly used it has to do with the differing logic between the exemplar language and the receptor language.
Formal equivalence is a translational philosophy that maintains the grammatical form of the word in the exemplar in the translation process.
Dynamic equivalence, when improperly used, is a translational philosophy that changes the grammatical form in the receptor language. (I believe this to be improper because it tends to negate, at least in part, the concept of verbal inspiration.)
In other words the translators feel free to change a noun to a pronoun, or conversely, a pronoun to a noun, and even the case and number of the original words, or even the tense of verbs, etc.
Robert Thomas, Professor of New Testament at Master's Seminary has written an excellent article wherein he opines that dynamic equivalence is more properly understood to be a hermeneutic than a translational philosophy. http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1g.pdf
Any Thoughts on the T.N.I.V.
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Roy1, Apr 14, 2005.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
Gold Dragon Well-Known Member
</font>[/QUOTE]Nope still no conflict. Dynamic equivalence recognizing the dynamic evolution of language does not mean that the word dynamic in dynamic equivalence is about the dynamic evolution of language. Confusing, eh?
-
Translations are done in the vernacular of the day. They are a snapshot in time of the receptor language. Unless the language itself changed from the time the translation started until it was complete there would be no need to account for the evolution of words in the receptor language as such evolution does not take place in so short a period of time. -
Gold Dragon Well-Known Member
Translations are done in the vernacular of the day. They are a snapshot in time of the receptor language. Unless the language itself changed from the time the translation started until it was complete there would be no need to account for the evolution of words in the receptor language as such evolution does not take place in so short a period of time. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. But in the time period from one translation to another, the evolution of language can happen.
Correction, the evolution of language does matter in a single translation because often the most literal word still exists in the modern vernacular, but with an evolved meaning. In those cases, a different word may be chosen.
"Lord of hosts" is one example where hosts no longer commonly carries the same meaning in the common vernacular that it used to even though it is the most literal translation for that word. The average non-bible/english scholar would think of the "Lord of people who open their homes to others". -
However, if we look at the NIV we see something entirely different. The NIV uses the term "the LORD Almighty" to translate what all the other English versions translate "LORD of hosts." Now that is an example of dynamic equivalence. The word "tsaba'" never means "almighty." In fact the Hebrew word for "almighty" is "Shadday."
So, if one of the newer English versions chose to translate 1 Samuel 1:3 as "This man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to Jehovah of multitudes in Shiloh" or perhaps "This man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to The LORD of masses in Shiloh" would not be an example of dynamic equivalence for "tsaba'" does literally mean any of those words. But to change (the meaning of "dynamic") from a word meaning "many" (hosts, multitudes, masses") to a word meaning "absolute power" is definitely dynamic equivalence. -
Gold Dragon Well-Known Member
Multitudes and masses do not capture the full meaning of what he is Lord of in these contexts. In some contexts, using multitudes or masses is does capture the meaning of the Hebrew.
[ April 15, 2005, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ] -
Here are some other examples, from the NIV, of what dynamic equivalence really is.
Ephesians 4:1-3. The NIV translates the passage with three imperatives (commands): 1) "Be completely humble and gentle, 2) be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3) Make every effort..."
But the Greek text does not have three commands (imperatives), but instead it has one exhortation (indicative) in verse 1, walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, followed by four examples. 1, being humble and gentle, 2, being patient, 3, bearing with one another, 4, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit . . .
Another classic example of this type of verb tense change is Jude 20.
NIV Jude 20 Dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith. Let the Holy Spirit guide and help you when you pray.
The NIV changes the participle "building" to the imperative "build."
(I won't even go into the difference between "praying in the Holy Spirit" and "Let the Holy Spirit guide and help you when you pray.")
-
Gold Dragon Well-Known Member
For more rigorous bible study, I always recommend more literal translations like the NASB where things like the relationships between the parts of this single command in these three verses can come to light. -
I love the NIV, but the TNIV almost makes me want to switch to something else. What a pathetic attempt at pandering to gender-inaccurate political correctness.
-
Just a note on the NASB. It is formal to the point of woodenness on some occasions. It gets so involved in formal equivalence that it actually obscures the colloquial meaning of some passages. It is an excellent translation but the reader needs to do a lot of personal study (which is not a bad thing!) in order to understand some of the passages. -
TNIV? I avoid it like the plague! Also the NRSV and all the other "gender neutral" versions. Let's not start messing with what was originally written! IMHO, there are several good Bible versions out there without resorting to the "gender neutral" versions...or the paraphrases...or the "dynamic equivalency" versions. Just give me a literal translation like the KJV, the NKJV, the ASV or the NASB and I will be happy. Does this mean that I am LTO (Literal Translation Only)?
-
OK, so I take it most won't be carrying a TNIV with them to church, is that what I'm getting?
-
Thanks for the input,
It looks like the T.N.I.V.is not receiving a wide approval of potential readers. It looks like it does have some serious flaws and a general degrading in the integrity process of translation.
Roy -
The TNIV appears to have strayed from correct translation of its sources too many times to be considered valid.
-
alexander284 Well-Known Member
I'm beginning to think Zondervan is just interested in selling more Bibles. ;)
Page 2 of 2