Bill Mounce: NIV/TNIV is "Dynamic"

You are questioning my salvation Rippon but considering you become irrational when anyone speaks of the NIV as a paraphrase, brief or otherwise, ?????

 

You are so double-minded OR. If anyone would continually assert that the KJV was not the Word of God...what would your response be?

 

Insults, snide remarks, questioning my salvation; that is pathetic Rippin!

I do not care what anyone believes about the KJV, including you or the KJVO people, types 1 thru 5. I do not base my beliefs on what other folks believe or, for that matter, what other people think about me. That is the reason I have not reported your above post questioning my salvation.

 

Would say that its a "mediating' version, in same camp as say the HCSB, and the NLT...

Would rate from liberal to conservative in their renderings

Nlt-Niv-HCSB....

 

The NLTse is not a mediating version. It's several notches to the right of the NET Bible over in the dynamic cluster.

It has nothing to do with being theologically liberal or conservative;rather its a continuum of more formal to more fuctionally equivalent.

And your arrangement is backwards. The NLTse is to the right on the charts. The HCSB,NIV,NAS,ISV,Wright's N.T and the CEB are on the left.

 

I'm trying to understand what the "fuss" is - Mounce is a true scholar -

Is it that some people don't understand what "dynamic equivalent" means? Maybe we need a reminder - Dynamic equivalent is basically "thought-for-thought" - it puts a great deal of value on what the translator THINKS the passage means. Indeed - dynamic equivalent can be a rather dangerous "walk on the edge of paraphrase" if one isn't careful.

Translation between many languages, ancient or modern, generally requires at least SOME degree of DE to make it understandable (just try translating Spanish to English - if you strictly stick to Formal/word-for-word translation, what you get is a lot of garbled words that make little sense together in English. One has to understand the grammar of both languages to place proper order to the words. Even then, there are often words in one language that don't really translate well at all (not to mention turns of language that just don't translate well).

But the NIV, particularly the most recent version - goes overboard in many areas, in many ways to sanitize and neutralize "divisive" language - particularly gender language.

Dynamic is not necessarily a "positive" adjective in regards to Bible translation - though ti can be a very positive term in relation to a public speaker.

 

You are correct! I was referring to formal/functional contrasted to DE models, so Should have been as:

Nasb 1977/-Nasb 1995-Esv-HCSB/Niv 2011/NLT as to me, they, Niv 2011 and the HCSB, would be about the same, both good versions!

 

that is the main reason prefer the 1984 version of NIV to 2011 one!

 

You in particular.

In your failed understanding. It does not go "overboard" at all with rerspect to inclusive language. Rod Decker and Daniel Wallace to name a few scholars maintain the opposite.

What other "many areas" are you suggesting?

 

The term optimal equivalence is what the HCSB calls itself. It seems to me that the NIV fits this category as well, although proponents would say that the NIV is more FE than DE.

"Optimal Equivalence: This approach seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word for word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. In places where a literal rendering might be unclear, then a more dynamic translation is given. The HCSB® has chosen to use the balance and beauty of optimal equivalence for a fresh translation of God's word that is both faithful to the words God inspired and "user friendly" to modern readers." - HCSB

 

I also place the HCSB/NIV 2011 in same "category" with the ESV more Formal than either, and the NASB more formal still!

 

Rod Decker has said :"...I think it is fair to conclude that in terms of translation philosophy the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB."

 

agree with that! As read the review of the ESV over on the bible researcher, and he indicate dthat in some areas much closer to taking the renderings of the OT/NT as the Niv team did than the more formal translations , such as the NASB/NKJV, were amending to being!

 

All one has to do is read the Preface to the NIV. They were seeking 'much more' than a Literal translation; e.g., Dynamic Equivalence.

 

Then,are you willing to say the same of the ESV? Rod Decker claims the translation philosophy of both are very much the same.

 

Would say ESV and Niv 2011 much closer than either to say NASB!

 

Since this thread deals with Bill Mounce I thought I would quote him regarding the ESV and current NIV. Dr. Mounce was the former head of the ESV N.T. translation team. Now he is on the 2011 NIV translation team. For one week every summer the team meets to discuss possible updates to the text.

Dr. Mounce believes the NIV is dynamic as Tom pointed out in his OP. That of course is contrary to my understanding of functional equivalence as a translational philosophy. But I digress. After his first experience with the members of the NIV team he said the following:

"I watched godly men and women struggle, sometimes agonize, over just the right wording so the NIV would faithfully convey the same meaning as intended by the biblical author. Whoever says dynamic translators have a lower view of Scripture needs to sit behind the veil and watch this group work."

And at another time fleshing things out a bit via Twitter:

"All Bible translations are constantly being updated. New research teaches us new things. I can tell you there is absolutely no watering down to the truth in the NIV. The NIV and ESV have different translation philosophies; and depending on where you are in life and ministry, you may find one more helpful than the other. But on both committees I never for a second saw the slightest urge to be liberal or politically correct. People who make these charges should read what the translators have written elsewhere, and you will see there is not an ounce of truth to the charges."

 

The NIV/TNIV are both dynamic equivalents. That's what you get when you go beyond a word-for-word attempt at translation.

As for Mounce, his Basics of Biblical Greek is still a great Greek primer.

 

I respect Mounce, but although the NIV (whether it's the 84 version, the TNIV, or the current one) uses dynamic equivalency more than the NASB, ESV, NRSV, NKJV, it remains in the cluster of mediating versions such as the HCSB, NAB, NET etc. There is a difference between using functional equivalence as a translation principle or as a translation philosophy. The NIV does the former. But versions that do the latter, like the GNT use dynamic equivalence as a translation philosophy. To lump the NIV in with the GNT, GWT,NCV, CEV or even The Message is foolishness. Could the HCSB be categorized as being in the latter group? Of course not. Yet the HCSB shows greater kinship to the NIV than the NLT for instance.

It's not an either/or situation. A version doesn't have to sit in either the formal camp or the dynamic equivalency camp. There is indeed a place in the middle. The NIV moves among both placements. So do the translations deemed formal at times. I have shown time and time again how dynamic many of the ESV renderings are. The ESV is not so differnt from the NIV in the grand scheme of things. Except when it comes to the issue of the ESV's awkward English --it bears a likeness to the NIV. I know that is a hard pill for many to swallow. But it's true. The ESV marketing hype --which unfortunately is also in its preface needs to be seen for what is is; h-y-p-e.

Permit me to quote from How to Choose a Translation for all Its worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss:

"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement), their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning)." (p.28)