Bible Question:
There are three major schools of thought when it comes to Bible translations: 1. Formal Equivalence: word-for-word 2. Dynamic Equivalence: thought-for-thought 3. Paraphrase The NASB is an example of Formal Equivalence. The NIV is an example of Dynamic Equivalence. The Living Bible is an example of Paraphrase. From your own perspective, explain what you think are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches. |
Bible Answer: Greetings DocTrinsofgrace! Here are my thoughts on this interesting question. 3) Paraphrases are of very little value. There is simply too much interpretation involved. 1) Formal Equivalence is a bit of a misnomer. There aren't really any 'word for word' translations. In fact, sometimes a 'word for word' translation could be misleading because of language differences. Actual translations change the word order and even 'add' words at times to help convey the original thought. Thus, every translation involves a degree of interpretation. 2) Dynamic Equivalence is actually closer to what most translation actually end up being. However, 'thought for thought' can be taken too far at times. If I had my choice, I would prefer something between 1 and 2. |