Site Supporter
Joined:
Dec 12, 2005
Messages:
19,715
Likes Received:
585
Faith:
Baptist
But the first six I listed were published way before 1945.
Site Supporter
Joined:
Dec 12, 2005
Messages:
19,715
Likes Received:
585
Faith:
Baptist
Since Nida didn't really like the original LB much (talked to Anderson personally about some renderings), and really didn't like how folks thought it was DE, he might be turning over in his grave with frustration.
Click to expand...
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.
Joined:
Oct 30, 2000
Messages:
11,170
Likes Received:
0
Personally, I see the 2011 NIVs reversion to sarx always translated as "flesh" as not necessarily a good thing for its translation style
John of Japan
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Sep 22, 2005
Messages:
19,373
Likes Received:
1,786
Faith:
Baptist
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).
Who is Anderson?
Click to expand...
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.
John of Japan
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Sep 22, 2005
Messages:
19,373
Likes Received:
1,786
Faith:
Baptist
I'd have to look it up in Nida's book, Fascinated by Languages . Don't have time now, maybe later.
John of Japan
Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Joined:
Sep 22, 2005
Messages:
19,373
Likes Received:
1,786
Faith:
Baptist
To my understanding...
Formal literal would have the attempt to translate into the native language an exact match as possible to what original document was wriiten down with
taking into account syntex, grammer, word meanings etc to have as close a match word by word from original to new
Click to expand...
This is a fairly good understanding.
This definition neglects the crucial element of DE/FE, which is reader response theory.
NASB tries to get "literal' as possible, at times its technically accurate, but hard to read and follow, good greek makes poor English at times!
NIV tries to express the scriptures in the way modern reader would say the same thing, at times loses the "biblical" message along the way
Thanks!
Click to expand...
In Japan we are trying to translate with a balance between these two.