Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Nida's dynamic-equivalence theory is often held in opposition to the views of philologists who maintain that an understanding of the source text (ST) can be achieved by assessing the inter-animation of words on the page, and that meaning is self-contained within the text (i.e. much more focused on achieving semantic equivalence).
A dynamic equivalence (free) translation tries to clearly convey the thoughts and ideas of the source text. A literal translation, it is argued, may obscure the intention of the original author. A free translator attempts to convey the subtleties of context and subtext in the work, so that the reader is presented with both a translation of the ...
The dynamic theory was inspired by a Spanish translation for Latin American native peoples. The American Bible Society, impressed with Nida's theories, decided to use them. Due to these requests and Nida's theories, Robert Bratcher [2] (who was at that time an employee at the American Bible Society) did a sample translation of the Gospel of Mark.
The debate between the formal equivalence and dynamic (or 'functional') equivalence translation styles has increased with the introduction of inclusive language versions. Various terms are employed to defend or attack this development, such as feminist, gender neutral, or gender accurate.
In early 1992, according to Hackbardt, all the earlier New Testament work was abandoned by the Society and an entirely new Bible translation based on the best Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek texts, and using the translation principle "closest natural equivalence"—beginning with the Old Testament—was completely re-translated by the society ...
In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "functional equivalence". [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] What the term "functional equivalence" suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text (translation) in the ...
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.
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: