Using computerized statistical analysis for the purpose of linguistic comparisons, research conducted by the Global Bible Initiative developed a quantitative evaluation of the major English translations based upon the two criteria represented in these two schools of translation philosophy: literal versus readable.
On some level, not much has changed since my early college years in explaining the differences between the translations as an in-store associate. Even back then, I used the framework of formal or dynamic in terms of their translation philosophy. Was there space for a third way, a philosophy that seeks to take the best from both ends of the spectrum, being optimal in terms of its faithfulness to the original text and faithful in its readability in contemporary English?
I believe so. Sure, binary options are easy to explain, but they sometimes fail to accurately represent the details in reality. After all, all of the major English translations have tried to incorporate both aspects of the continuum to varying degrees. This approach seeks to represent the original Greek and Hebrew in a more word-for-word manner and preserve—as far as possible—original word order, grammar, and syntax.
Many prefer this method because each Greek or Hebrew word is generally represented by the same English word in all occurrences. The most literal translation is the interlinear which contains the text in its original language with the English equivalent under the text. On the other end of the spectrum we find the thought-for-thought translation also referred to as a paraphrase or functional equivalent.
This approach is more concerned with putting meaning of the passage in a colloquial language familiar to the reader. This type of translation seeks to render the ideas of the original text as accurately as possible in the target language like English.
Many find this translation more readable, especially for new readers. The middle of the spectrum is occupied by the dynamic equivalent, or mediating translation. These translations seek to strike a balance between the two translation approaches. They are sometimes more literal, sometimes more colloquial or conversational depending on the subject and text. Many find it helpful to consult more than one translation—or to use different translations in different settings. While a more literal translation may be preferred for study, a less literal translation may be desired for devotional or casual reading.
Take this simple online Bible knowledge quiz. Do you know less about the Bible than about your other top interests? Then check out what Congregational Resource Guide suggests. English-speaking Christians have been using multiple Bible translations for centuries , even after the King James Bible was released in Craig Blomberg describes five intriguing changes in the updated NIV. Most English Bible translations have been compiled by white men. Seventy-seven reading groups were assigned a book of the Bible.
These readers of all ages and 13 denominations read the text aloud to each other and commented on awkward or unclear phrasing. Watch this video on how to bring scripture alive in worship. Browse related stories on ethnodoxology ; Eugene Peterson , author of The Message Bible paraphrase; and scripture memory and public reading.
Feel free to print and distribute these stories at your church staff, board, education, worship, or youth ministry meeting. These questions will help your group talk about how you choose and use Bible translations:. Join our mailing list Home Resources Resource Library. Note that you need a Facebook account in order to add comments. If you don't see a place above to enter or view comments, it may be due to your browser's security or privacy settings.
0コメント