Aren't ALL English versions To a Degree BOTH Formal and Dynamic?

But the first six I listed were published way before 1945.

 

What folks thought it was DE? Most folks have regarded the old Living Bible as a paraphrase --even Taylor said as much. It was his interpretive rephrasing of the 1901 ASV.

 

Personally, I see the 2011 NIVs reversion to sarx always translated as "flesh" as not necessarily a good thing for its translation style

 

And that's unfortunate. The secular world hasn't gone along, but secular scholars still uses the term "free translation" (which I will define at some point in my thread on definitions).

Don't know! :laugh: I meant to say Taylor.

You sure? I read somewhere that he died this year, but I can't find it now.
The NLTse is a whole different critter than the old living Bible. I don't know what he thinks of the curent NLT,but I doubt it leads him to frustration.

 

I'd have to look it up in Nida's book, Fascinated by Languages. Don't have time now, maybe later.

 

This is a fairly good understanding.

This definition neglects the crucial element of DE/FE, which is reader response theory.

In Japan we are trying to translate with a balance between these two.