Featured NIV Translator Larry Lee Walker, 1932-2021

Does this indicate an admission that it was wrong to force his retirement from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary?

A small memorial service will be held at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary on Saturday.​

 

Has there been any article published on the original team of the NIV scholars?

 

If anyone would read the CT article that Jerome provided it is quite clear that Walker was a noble man who was devoted to the Lord in his endeavors.

 

He was at MABTS when I was there

I was working on taking a class with him when I left

he was held in very high regard in Evangelical Circles

 

There is certainly no such thing as 'exact equivalence.' That's laughable.

 

Walker was proceeded in death by ...​

Oops.

 

Please do not try to tell a KJVO that. They will have an aneurysm

 

This whole issue of formal equivalence vs. functional equivalence is filled with misinformation. All Bible translation is approximation. Parts of a verse (which itself is only a manmade invention a number of centuries ago) may be more 'exact' than other parts of the same passage. A form-oriented translation may or may not be the best way to handle things depending on a particular A more formal translation of the New Testament text may uses a good deal more functional equivalence than what their advertising campaign states. A more functionally equivalent translation may use more direct renderings than the public thinks. Verses weave in and out with functional and formal wordings. Is the meaning coming through? That should be the main goal of any translation for any Bible version. There is no singularly correct rendering of verses. That's why the various translations are 'versions.'

The NIV is held up in some quarters as the bogeyman. All sorts of misinformation, as well as outright lies are said about it. The furor has generally calmed down a bit since the turn of the 21st century --due largely to World magazine, Grudem, Ryken and Dobson --among other infamous characters. But the vilifying tendency is still lurking in the shadows.

The NIV still maintains the middle ground turf. It's a mediating translation. The CSB, NABRE, NJB, NET and possibly other translations are in no man's land --nether fish nor fowl. These mediating translations have a good deal of dynamic renderings as well as more formal readings. It's not one or the other. As I said, some of what are known as more form-oriented contain a lot of dynamic renderings and some of what are known as functionally equivalent versions have a surprising number of more formal readings. GW, CEV and NCV are to the right of the NIV in those charts all have seen. The NLT is a bit more toward the left of these, but not quite in the mediating category. The NLT has more dynamic readings reading than the NIV. And it has more inclusive language. But the average Joe or Jill doesn't know this because the NLT has slipped under the radar. And I say this as a fan of the NLT. It's my second favorite English Bible translation. Yes, it is a translation -- not a paraphrase like its great, great grandfather --the Living Bible.

 

The Nas and Nkjv practiced that much more then the 2011 niv did!

 

Again, there is no such thing as exact equivalence.

 

true, but there are more formal and literal!

 

Duh!

 

Since the NIV translation is related to the OP I will do some quoting from the 2003 edition of The Challenge Of Bible Translation. Right now I will give some snips from the third chapter. It's called The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translations. The author is D.A. Carson.

"...it has become necessary to warn against the reactionary wing that demonizes functional equivalence with occasionally insightful rhetoric, but is more often linguistically uninformed, is rarely balanced, and is sometimes shrill." (pages 77,78)

"...appeal to loyalty and faithfulness toward the Word of God as the ground for preserving formal equivalence is both ignorant and manipulative..." (p. 85)

"There is widespread recognition of the inadequacy of merely formal equivalence in translation, buttressed by thousands and thousands of examples." (p.91)

"...functional equivalence, rightly understood, is essential for good translation.... At its best, functional equivalence, far from jeopardizing good translations, is essential for fidelity in translation --fidelity in conveying not only meaning but also tone, emotional impact, naturalness/awkwardness, and much more." (pgs. 92,93)

 

Wasn't D A Carson payed by Zondervan?

 

In the footnotes for his article I quoted smatterings of, this is what he said in #62 :
"Because my views have been repeatedly dismissed on the grounds (it is said) that I was a translator for the NIV and therefore benefit financially from my arguments, I suppose I had better set the record straight. I did a bit of pro bono consultation for the NIV, making comments on the translation of one New Testament book about thirty years ago at the request of Dr. Edwin Palmer. I was not paid a cent. I have worked on a couple of other (non-NIV-related) translations. Why this should invalidate my arguments any more than the fact that Dr. Grudem worked on the ESV should invalidate his, I have no idea." (p.111)

 

I am sure that the twenty or so contributors of the book The Challenge of Bible Translation were paid by Zondervan. Again, the book was published in 2003.

 

Larry Lee Walker's chapter from this book was entitled The Use Of capital Letters In Translating Scripture Into English. I have yet to read his 18th chapter, because the subject held no interest for me.
I will quote the last six sentences from his article's summary :
"Translators who put Scripture into English face problems not encountered when putting Scripture into some other languages. Some of these are doctrinal and crucial, for example the 'spirit' versus 'Spirit' question. Others are simply a matter of style and preference. The decisions made are not mechanical but involve careful assessment of text and context. All are important in the task of communicating the message of Scripture to modern English readers. The goal should be to help the reader grasp the message of Scripture; as with matters of punctuation, capitalization can help the general reader of the Bible more quickly grasp the flow of the text and its meaning." (p.419)