Translation Debate

I have been using the CSB for sometime now but I have recently come to question that decision. What resources in logos do you recommend that speak to the translation debate issue? I am interested in comparisons between the literal and dynamic equivalent approaches to interpretation. Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Why not just have one (or two) of each type of Bible open in Logos at the same time, and see the differences for yourself?

Michael Kinch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288205#Comment_1288205

Why not just have one (or two) of each type of Bible open in Logos at the same time, and see the differences for yourself?

Thanks RJ. The translation philosophy behind translations is important particularly in choosing your primary translation. Yes I can use the Text Comparison tool to determine what the differences are between the different translations. I may like a particular reading in one translation over that of other translations but what I want to know is, which translation is closest to the original text. When I look at bible translation comparison charts, the NASB and the ESV are closest in word for word translation. See here Written another way, which translation best coveys the original text and intent of the author. I have recently read Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach | Logos Bible Software which was on the twitter sale this week. I am also looking at The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? | Logos Bible Software and Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning | Logos Bible Software. There are probably other resources in Logos that would be helpful. In order to get a balanced view I want to look at translations from different perspectives. It is important to me that the observations, interpretations and applications that I make in my studies are based upon the Word of God as God inspired the human authors with as little as possible of private interpretations. I want translation not interpretation as I read or study the text.

Kiyah

I found this Mobile Ed course to be helpful:

Mobile Ed: BI181 Introducing Bible Translations (2 hour course) | Logos Bible Software

Kiyah

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288230#Comment_1288230

It looks like the Mobile Ed course I linked above is also a part of a bigger bundle with three courses on bible translation:

Bible Translations Bundle (3 courses) | Logos Bible Software

Kiyah

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288228#Comment_1288228

Okay last one I promise, lol. I found two more books by typing this search into the library store inside logos:

subject:bible-translating

Mark Strauss has apparently done a lot on this topic, these both happen to be by him:

How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions | Logos Bible Software

40 Questions about Bible Translation (40 Questions Series) | Logos Bible Software

MJ. Smith

Yes, Eugene Nida regretted the way the distinction between dynamic and formal equivalence in Bible translation was sometimes misapplied. Here's why:

Oversimplification: The terms "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence" were helpful in starting discussions about translation philosophies. However, they were often treated as rigid categories rather than a spectrum of possible approaches.

Prioritizing 'Meaning' over Form: Some translators using the dynamic equivalence label prioritized conveying the perceived meaning of a text, sometimes at the expense of the original wording and cultural context. Nida believed it was important to balance meaning with as much of the original form as possible.

Ethnocentrism: Unfortunately, some interpretations of dynamic equivalence led to imposing Western cultural assumptions onto the Biblical texts instead of faithfully representing the original cultures.

Nida emphasized that good translation involves a complex interplay between form and meaning. He later preferred the terms "functional equivalence" over "dynamic equivalence" to better convey this balance.

Note re: preserving form: English is an SVO language i.e. Subject-Verb-Object is the normal sentence order. Biblical Hebrew is VSO and Biblical Greek although relatively free is most often SVO.

Note I used Bard instead of going on a personal rant which would have been controversial.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288240#Comment_1288240

... instead of going on a personal rant which would have been controversial.

After reading Robert Alter's Art of Biblical Translation, I'm reluctant to make decisions on the labels. They might be descriptive, but not necessarily correlating to good translation.

Better to choose a translation that agrees with what you think. Smiling.

Doc B

What resources in logos do you recommend that speak to the translation debate issue?

I'd say as strongly as I can to simply not have a 'translation debate.' Go watch Mark Ward's videos on which version is "the best." Here's the link to his youtube channel. Look for videos titled, "The xyz Version is the Best Bible Translation," where xyz can be KJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, etc.

It'll be worth your time.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288251#Comment_1288251

where xyz can be

...it IS...NASB95.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288251#Comment_1288251

A debate may be more fun than research?

One solution is to utilize the original languages. Logos has many tools for that.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288228#Comment_1288228

The translation philosophy behind translations is important particularly in choosing your primary translation.

You should question this assumption. In the 1960's a new translation of the Chinese classic I Ching was published that immediately got accolades as being the best English translation yet. The joke was that the translator did not know Chinese. His translation was built on multiple translations in multiple European languages. He simply "translated" what all the translations seemed to point towards. Stephen Mitchell took a somewhat similar approach at times. I'm just saying don't swallow your assumption without thought. I would suggest that you read a couple of text books on the skill of translation. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications - Kindle edition by Munday, Jeremy, Ramos Pinto, Sara, Blakesley, Jacob. Reference Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. is a reasonable starting point. (Admittedly I am familiar with an early edition.)

literal and dynamic equivalent approaches to interpretation.

You realize that Nida proposed these terms in the mid 60's and changed to literal and functional equivalents as he considered his original terminology to being misunderstood/abused. Furthermore, since the mid 90's translations have been evaluated by multidimensional models because Nida's model is deemed over-simplistic.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288259#Comment_1288259

...it IS...NASB95.

After having to check the translation, of various translations I've tried to use as a common base, I've ended up with Emphasized Bible (early 1900s). I got tired of fit-the-doctine modern translations (including so-called literal).

Emphasized follows a more classical fit-the-language, including how style connotes meaning. Originally, it worked off of Tregales, and then updated to Westcott for the NT. I'm hoping to compare it to Alter's OT.

Michael Kinch

Thanks everyone! Some great suggestions and comments here.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288228#Comment_1288228

I want translation not interpretation as I read or study the text.

see this thread - https://community.logos.com/forums/p/221386/1288126.aspx#1288126

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1288419#Comment_1288419

There is simply no such animal as a "literal word for word" translation from one language to another.

Personally, I prefer the NIV 1984 edition as my favorite translation, most of the time. However, I preach from the ESV because my congregation cannot buy a new 1984 edition of the NIV, and I just do not like the post-1984 editions.

Always go back to the Hebrew and Greek text, or to somebody who can go back to the Hebrew and Greek text. No English translation is perfect.