Formal Equivalence or Dynamic Equivalence?

[Æmilia Gratia]

Which translation method do you prefer?

I prefer the first and enjoy reading from my ESV, (N)KJV and NASB.

 

[wil]

Mayhaps you can explain the difference? Which books fit in which category?

 

[Æmilia Gratia]

http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/dynamic-formal-equivalence.html

 

[wil]

Looks like I am both ends of the spectrum...from predominately formal for initial reading yet get more context and flavor from the extensive dynamic and paraphrase...

Predominant use of formal equivalence

King James Version (1611)

• Young's Literal Translation (1862)
• Lexham English Bible (2011, 2012)
• Revised Version (1885)
• American Standard Version (1901)
• Revised Standard Version (1952)
• New American Standard Bible (1995)
• New King James Version (1982)
• New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (2013)
• English Standard Version (2001)
• New Revised Standard Version (1989)
• Douay-Rheims (1610)
• Green's Literal Translation (1985)

Moderate use of dynamic equivalence

• New International Version
• Today's New International Version[6]
• Holman Christian Standard Bible called "optimal equivalence"
• New American Bible
• New English Translation
• Modern Language Bible

Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or both

• New Jerusalem Bible
• New English Bible
• Revised English Bible
• Good News Bible (formerly "Today's English Version")
• Complete Jewish Bible
• New Living Translation
• God's Word Translation
• Contemporary English Version

Extensive use of paraphrase

• The Message (2002)
• The Living Bible (1971)

 

[waggindraggin]

I'm all mixed up from reading KJV a lot as a child and then reading NIV later. Now when I remember a verse I can't remember which version its from. KJV is good for word studies. NIV has pretty poetry and is easy to understand usually but really terrible for word studies. Probably no one should follow my example though.