Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,862
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,709
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,293
Tom 3,300
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 21
Pilgrim 17
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Law and Grace
by Tom. Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:16 PM
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#54280 - Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:42 AM A new translation - CSB  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,748
John_C Offline
Permanent Resident
John_C  Offline

Permanent Resident

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,748
Mississippi Gulf Coast
What is optimal equilvalence? I know the NIV used dynamic equivalence. So the question is what is the difference between the two?

Here is an extract from the opening paragraph on the website.
Quote

HOW THE CSB WAS TRANSLATED

The CSB was translated using a methodology called Optimal Equivalence, which balances contemporary English readability with linguistic precision to the original languages. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. When a word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is used.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
#54283 - Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:43 AM Re: A new translation - CSB [Re: John_C]  
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 55
goldenoldie Offline
Journeyman
goldenoldie  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 55
Masschusetts, USA
Who defines optimal? We can't apply calculus here crazy


In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
#54286 - Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:57 PM Re: A new translation - CSB [Re: John_C]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,295
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,295
NH, USA
Originally Posted by John_C

Quote

HOW THE CSB WAS TRANSLATED

The CSB was translated using a methodology called Optimal Equivalence, which balances contemporary English readability with linguistic precision to the original languages. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. When a word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is used.

The main problem is the presupposition which undergirds their philosophy of translation. The main responsibility of a translator is to translate the original language into the language of the target audience without doing any violence to the original language. I'm wondering as I chuckle to myself, if these 'moderns' would dynamically translate the Bible using Ebonics if the target audience was Detroit? rolleyes2 Far too many modern translations destroy the original text for the sake of an arbitrary "clarity" in order to make the Bible more "readable" for modern readers.

- The English language has been so bastardized that I suspect that even those living 100 years ago wouldn't recognize it. Proper English has been gradually replaced with slang and profanity.
- I have no doubt the majority of people in the USA would have great difficulty reading the KJV, ASV or even the NASB. But that is no reason to abandon the sanctity of God's inspired written Word by using any form of "dynamic equivalence" to translate it.
- This type of thinking, which is certainly not new nor novel is also guilty of ignoring the authority, responsibility and importance of the visible Church, i.e., the Church's main responsibility is to preach/teach the Word. It is to bring true believer's (as God's appointed instrument) to maturity (Eph 4:11ff; Col 1:28; 1Thess 5:11-14; 2Tim 3:16,17, 4:1,2ff; Heb 13:17; et al). And, secondarily to call sinners to repentance from sin and faith in the Lord Christ unto salvation.
- Ironically, in most every case where an alleged (obscurity) [obscure to whom?] occurs in the original language and it is dynamically translated, the meaning is either obscured far worse and even lost completely.

Enough said, at least in my estimation grin... and to be honest, I would not bother with the CSB translation version of the Bible. Haven't people learned from any of these projects, e.g., the NIV, MEV, TLB, GNB, etc., etc., ad nauseam?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#54288 - Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:05 AM Re: A new translation - CSB [Re: John_C]  
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 55
PerpetualLearner Offline
Journeyman
PerpetualLearner  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 55
Tampa Bay, Florida
Originally Posted by John_C
What is optimal equilvalence? I know the NIV used dynamic equivalence. So the question is what is the difference between the two?

Here is an extract from the opening paragraph on the website.
Quote

HOW THE CSB WAS TRANSLATED

The CSB was translated using a methodology called Optimal Equivalence, which balances contemporary English readability with linguistic precision to the original languages. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. When a word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is used.


The bias or translation slant of an English version is very important to me. From bible-researcher.com I lift some descriptions to explain. On the NASB it reads: "unlike the RSV, the NASB deliberately interprets the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament." On the NRSV: "The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to many Christians is continued in this revision." On the Revised English Bible it states: "it remains considerably less literal than the Revised Standard Version (1952). The method of translation is comparable to that of the New International Version (1973); but, being the work of non-evangelical scholars, it lacks the distinctively evangelical interpretation of the Old Testament to be seen in the NIV."

While I view the NT as explaining the OT, I find it good to also use the RSV, NRSV & REB to more closely see how the Old Covenant Jew would have heard the Hebrew words. I like it to balance against the far right slant that can be found at times in the more modern evangelical versions. As an example, Exodus 21:22:

NASB77 "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."

When this verse became a key in the abortion debate, suddenly the translation needed to be changed to support the idea that a human being exists at conception, so the NASB was changed thus:

NASB95 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."

Up until Roe vs Wade in 1973, most translations and/or commentators tilted toward "miscarriage", even the KJV "her fruit depart" was usually understood as miscarriage. But when the verse became a problem in the abortion debate, a change was made in translation of evangelical versions, but the RSV, NRSV & REB remained "miscarriage". For historical background, a couple of commentary statements on Ex.21:22.

John Trapp, Puritan: "There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God." (According to the Hodges, creationism, was the predominant view of the Reformed on origin of the soul.)

Adam Clarke: "But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder - the person was put to death."

There are a couple of excellent pages online on translations that I've found helpful:
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf


Ned
#54301 - Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:12 AM Re: A new translation - CSB [Re: John_C]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,748
John_C Offline
Permanent Resident
John_C  Offline

Permanent Resident

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,748
Mississippi Gulf Coast
I wonder what translation do most of the advocates of this new bible are using now. Possibly the NIV.

When I became a Christian the NASB was the hottest translation, then the NIV took over everything, then the ESV wthin Reformed circles took over.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 18 guests, and 108 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
Protestant Laird
Popular Topics(Views)
651,313 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.041s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 2.5779 MB (Peak: 2.8490 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-20 19:21:01 UTC