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.
In the 1960s, Nida envisioned a new style of translation called dynamic equivalence. That is, the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek would be expressed in a translation "thought for thought" rather than "word for word". The dynamic theory was inspired by a Spanish translation for Latin American native peoples.
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).
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 ...
The Committee on Bible Translation wanted to build a new version on the heritage of the NIV and, like its predecessor, create a balanced mediating version–one that would fall in-between the most literal translation and the most free; [3] between word-for-word (Formal Equivalence) [3] and thought-for-thought (Dynamic Equivalence). [3]
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.