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.
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.
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).
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 ...
The CEB uses a balance of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence translation principles. Ease of comprehension was measured using the standard Dale-Chall Readability Formula so a seventh grade reading level could be attained. [9] The translators' goal is to produce a rendering of the Bible at the same reading level as the USA Today ...
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.
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: