Tag: Bible Translation Philosophy

Gender-Neutral or Inclusive Language in Bible Translation

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was one of the first major translations to adopt the gender-neutral language. The King James Version translated at least one passage using a technique that many now reject in other translations, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9). One of the last bastions of literal translation philosophy, the New American Standard Bible, has given into the gender-neutral translation philosophy. Fortunately, we now have the literal 2022 Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

0

Bible Translation Philosophy—What Is It?

The debate as to where one should be in the spectrum of literal versus dynamic equivalent, i.e., their translation philosophy has been going on since the first translation of the Hebrew (Aramaic) into Greek, i.e., the Septuagint (280-150 B.C.E.).

0

Defining and Redefining Bible Translation Terminology

For some time now terms ending in the word “equivalent” or one of its variations have been preferred in describing translation philosophies. I have a problem with this word, and all translators really should have the same problem with it: it begs the very question we are debating.

0

The Bible Translation Debate

UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, all major English Bible translations were based on the premise that the goal of Bible translation is to take the reader as close as possible to the words that the biblical authors actually wrote.

0

Does It Matter Which Bible Translation?

UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, all major English Bible translations were based on the premise that the goal of Bible translation is to take the reader as close as possible to the words that the biblical authors actually wrote.

0

Review of Logos Bible Software’s Lexham English Bible

The Lexham English Bible (LEB) is a relatively accurate Bible translation. It is on par with the English Standard Version, and in some case more literal. The relatively new Lexham English Bible is being marketed as a “second Bible,” to be used with whatever “primary translation” the reader prefers. And this is how it should be used. I hope that this is a sign of a realization among publishers as well as Bible readers that not all Bible translations are equal, or always faithful to the original languages of the Scriptures.

0

Function Vs. Form – a False Dichotomy

The reader needs and deserves to know what the passage actually says, even if it is difficult to understand. A contextual interpretation that ignores or deviates from the Original Language does not provide that, and since this kind of interpretation is a basic element of Dynamic Equivalent / Functional Equivalent translation, there is little or no “equivalency” to the OL in these passages at all. So on this score, the distinction between DE/FE translations and literal translations truly is a false dichotomy. The real distinction is between translations whose philosophies permit this kind of contextual interpretation in place of literal translation and translations that formally correspond to the OL as much as possible.

0

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: If the Public Deserves a More Accurate Greek Text…

“Functional” equivalence as a philosophy assumes that it is possible to create a translation with the exact same meaning as the OL text, without matching the grammatical forms found in the original or using words that match the meanings of the OL words, as established or recommended by lexical research. Of course, it also assumes that a translation done as a formal equivalent differs from a functional equivalent to such an extent as to be contrasted with it. In other words, two such translations will belong to these two separate categories, and there is a dichotomy between them.

1

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑