Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Translators of the Bible have taken various approaches in rendering it into English, ranging from an extreme use of formal equivalence, to extreme use of dynamic equivalence. [7] Predominant use of formal equivalence Relationship between some formal equivalence Bible translations. Douay–Rheims Bible (1610) King James Bible (1611)
A functional equivalence, or thought-for-thought, translation goes even further than dynamic equivalence, and attempts to give the meaning of entire phrases, sentences, or even passages rather than individual words.
GW uses a dynamic equivalence translation methodology it calls "Closest Natural Equivalence". [2] Its publishers believe that communicating the original meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that comprise the Scriptures such that everyone can comprehend requires taking a completely new look at the original languages.
Inside the Bible-translation community, these are commonly categorized as: Dynamic equivalence translation; Formal equivalence translation (similar to literal translation) Idiomatic, or paraphrastic translation, as used by the late Kenneth N. Taylor; though modern linguists, such as Bible scholar Dr. Joel Hoffman, disagree with this ...
Eugene Albert Nida (November 11, 1914 – August 25, 2011) was an American linguist who developed the dynamic equivalence theory of Bible translation and is considered one of the founders of modern translation studies.
Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss see the NET (along with the NIV and the HCSB) as a "mediating version" between functional equivalence and formal equivalence. [8]In the preface to the first edition, W. Hall Harris III, PhD, "The NET Bible Project Director" claims that the NET Bible solves the problem of dynamic vs. formal equivalence:
The New Living Translation used translators from a variety of Christian denominations.The method combined an attempt to translate the original texts simply and literally with a dynamic equivalence synergy approach used to convey the thoughts behind the text where a literal translation may have been difficult to understand or even misleading to modern readers.
Examples include the King James Version, English Standard Version, Literal Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible. Dynamic equivalence (or functional equivalence, sometimes paraphrastic translation) in which the translator attempts to render the sense and intent of the original.