Dynamic equivalent translations are not overly concerned with concordance, i.e., translating the same Greek word with the same English word. But if it is possible to find the right English word that matches all the different uses of the Greek word, it can be a good thing. Yet that task can be more difficult than you might think. And the Greek of Acts 7:19 is a bit treacherous.

In English, modifiers need to be next to the words they modify. In Greek, they don't care because they have a different system of linking modifiers to their head noun. So what's a translator to do?

Many people do not use certain gender terms properly, which creates confusion in the discussion of translation theory. What is “gender neutral,” “gender inclusive,” and “gender accurate"? Why is this even an issue?

Is it more accurate to translate word-for-word, or to translate phrase-by-phrase? Some argue the former, but in truth it isn't possible. Meaning is conveyed primarily by phrases, and words gain their specific meaning in the context of the phrase. So accuracy has more to do with the phrase than the individual words.

People often lump functional equivalent translations like the NIV with natural language translations like the NLT, and then critique the former based on the latter. But these are two distinctly different translation theories and should be kept separate, although obviously they share much in common.

What should a translator do when the actual words don't make sense? Do we let the reader figure out the meaning, or do we help?

"Formal Equivalent Translation" try to translate word-for-word as much as possible, and shift to translating meaning when necessary. This gives the impression of being an "accurate" translation. But the simple fact of the matter is that no translation goes word-for-word in a single verse in the Bible. The nature of language doesn't allow it.

As you get into Greek, you will find that the grammar is not always correct. Sometimes, like in Revelation, the grammar can be explained by the fact that John is in an ecstatic state and the grammar irregularities enhance the message. But even in non-apocalyptic literature, you will find that the grammar rules are not always followed. This should not affect your view of inspiration. All good writers violate grammar, periodically, for effect, or for other reasons.

People often say there are two forms of translation, "formal" and "functional." One is more "word-for-word" and the other is more "thought-for-thought." This is not accurate. There are actually five, and a truly "literal" Bible is not really a biblical translation at all.

Since a word in one language does not line up exactly with a word in another language, translation is often a matter of choosing one meaning or the other, which generally means some information is lost. It also means all translations are interpretive. Words have what is called a "semantic range," a breadth of meaning. They don't have one "literal" meaning. In this passage, is Paul saying Timothy is his legitimate child or genuine child? Is Paul talking about Timothy's legal status or character?

I am starting a short series of blogs on what I have learned about translation since joining the Committee on Bible Translation, which controls the text of the NIV. In this first posting I am discussing my dislike of the word "literal."

When you have one preposition and two objects, the writer is telling you, in a very nuanced way, that you should be viewing the two objects as a single entity. Not identical, but in some way functioning as one. So when a single preposition governs both "God" and "Christ," what is Paul saying?

One of the many functions of the word ὁ is to turn a phrase into a noun, and one of the of the most common phrases is the prepositional phrase. Matt 24:17 show several examples of this, and it also provides an interesting exegetical issue. If this verse is about Jesus' return and the end of time, then why are the people told to not go back into their houses? Time is over; it doesn't matter what's in the house.

I am taking a break from blogging until August. We are off to Ireland for the annual NIV meeting, sightseeing around Ireland and Northern Ireland with my family, and then headed to Berlin for my daughter's wedding. Follow the fun on Instagram.com/billmounce. I will start up again some time in August.

And the answer is not that the verb is deponent. The answer has to do with the relationship between σα and θη forms.

When an adjective functions substantivally, generally we have to add in words from the context to make sense of the statement. Normally, it is not hard to do so, but it would appear that Acts 2:23 is somewhat troublesome. When Peters says that Jesus died by the hands of ἀνόμων, is he thinking of lawless people or non-Jewish people? And once more, can we stop saying Luke literally says "men without the Law, i.e. pagans" when Luke did not write English? Literally, Luke said ἀνόμων.

Why do some people resist the new, and why do others think the new is better than the old? Jesus' teaching is the new wine, and the purveyors of the old will almost always fight it, asserting their old forms of thinking are good enough or actually better. Why is it so hard to evaluate the new and decide whether or not it should replace our old? Let's think through Luke 5:39.

Interestingly, the NRSV translates the Greek phrase normally translated "the great tribulation" as "the great ordeal." Just because they are the only ones to do so doesn't make them wrong, but unique translations make for interesting discussion. Check out Revelation 7:14

When we translate the Greek conjunction γάρ as "for," we sometimes obscure the connection between verses. When Jesus says that the Pharisees wouldn't even get into the kingdom of God, how does that relate to his prior assertion that every iota and stroke of the pen found in the law will be fulfilled in him?

When can a present refer to the future, and what is the "more difficult reading" in textual criticism.

Paul says that the church is to formally agree to take care of widows who are truly alone and, among other things, have lives that witness to their good deeds. But how do you specify that the following clauses are all example of good works? Is it okay to use a colon in translation?

Sometimes, in an attempt to make a translation understandable, functional equivalent translations can lose clues as to meaning, the very thing they are trying not to do. In the case of Acts 1:24, the NIV loses the double use of τόπος.

Normal Greek word order is conjunction-verb-subject-object, but that order is varied in almost every verse in there Bible. So what do you do when the structure of a verse is complicated and different? Find the verb, then the subject (either a nominative or from the personal ending), then the direct object (if there is one). From that point on, you can put the other pieces together.