Optimal equivalence is the idea that meaning is present on every level: word level, phrase level, clause level, sentence level, paragraph level, chapter level, book level, canon level. It has the best articulated translation philosophy of any Bible translation. That is one of the reasons the CSB is my favorite translation. The dynamic equivalence philosophy downplays the word level too much, in my estimation. The formal equivalence philosophy misses some of the more contextual aspects of translation, and that meaning does not reside only at the word level. However, each principle is also missing something. The dynamic equivalence principle has an equally strong element of truth to it, that context determines what words mean. It has a very important element of truth, that we use words to mean things. As formal equivalence goes, the KJV used it more flexibly.Īs a translation philosophy, however, I find the formal equivalence principle incomplete. Noticing differences in translation can alert you to potential issues to be resolved in Bible study. In fact, for anyone who doesn't know Hebrew and Greek, I recommend using more than one translation for Bible study. There is no reason to limit yourself to just one translation for study. I wouldn't get rid of your NASB for Bible study. There can be no doubt that the NASB is an excellent resource for those who, like yourself, don't know the original languages. I believe that actually happened with the NASB. Formal equivalence as a principle can be applied too rigidly. I've already been down the ESV road enough to know it's a no-go for me. I know many of you will suggest ESV as an alternate, but I would rather go down with the NASB95 ship than use that translation. Thanks in advance! I've already poured through all the forum discussions on the CSB and benefitted greatly from your wisdom - especially that of Dr. Which one of these two would you get re-bound if you were teaching and looking for a translation you could confidently recommend to your students? Do you think the CSB has more potential longevity than NASB95?ģ. Am I making too much of an issue of formal equivalence for deeper Bible study?Ģ. I just can't love it no matter how hard I try.ġ. But I also want a translation I can recommend to others as I teach and write most of the Bible studies our ladies do at my church.
My current NASB95 is about 13 years old and I love my crinkly pages and the time I've spent marking it up and taking notes. I'm looking to get one of my Bibles re-bound over the summer to a more sturdy and upgraded leather and more long-lasting binding. I have no knowledge of original languages, other than to look up transliterations, and I have an entry-level lay-person's understanding of Greek tenses/moods/voices. I very much enjoy it as well but have always understood formal equivalence to be better for deep study when it comes to word studies and such. I have been using the CSB since it came out for my daily reading, but not for deeper study. I'm concerned my beloved NASB is not going to be a longterm option and I want something I can continue to use until I'm old and gray(er). I understand that the 95 is going to continue to be published by Zondervan, but I have concerns that they will eventually pollute it with a revision at some point or discontinue it to make their own new translation (probably more likely). However, the recent 2020 update, followed by the news of MacArthur getting rights to the '73('77? - can't remember the year), has made me question my loyalty to the NASB. Historically, I have been a NASB95 devotee through and through.
0 kommentar(er)
