Closest Natural Equivalence
Closest natural equivalent translation attempts to be exactly what its name implies. Above all else, it provides readers with a meaning equivalent to the source language (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek in the case of the Bible) in the target language (English in the case of GOD'S WORD^®). Second and equally important, it seeks ways to express that meaning naturally in a way that a native English speaker would have spoken or written. Finally, it expresses the meaning naturally in a way that is as close as possible to the way the source language expressed the meaning.

In closest natural equivalence, meaning and naturalness are equal partners. If the proposed words of a translation have the potential to convey the correct meaning of the source text but are not natural for English readers, most readers will probably not understand the text correctly. Likewise, if a translation is very natural English but does not convey the meaning of the source text well, most readers will probably misunderstand it. Thus, two important principles of closest natural equivalence are

• a translation that is not natural in the target language is not equivalent to the source text, no matter how well it may match the source text on a word-by-word basis
• target language naturalness by itself does not ensure a good translation

However, closest natural equivalence does more than achieve a combination of meaning equivalence and naturalness. Closest natural equivalence preserves many of the characteristics of the source text (e.g., style, modes of expression, etc.). For instance, the following is one common expression in the Bible that describes how God used his power to free his people from Egypt:byd hzqh wbzrw' ntwyh

This phrase is often translated into English as "with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm." While mighty hand clearly and naturally communicates to readers that God was using his power, outstretched arm does not. In English the picture painted by outstretched arm could be one of greeting or reconciliation or one of weakness because the arm is overextended. Some Bible translations have recognized this problem. For example, one English Bible translates this phrase "with his great power and strength." While this communicates the meaning of the Hebrew well, it loses the vivid metaphorical language because the concrete words arm and hand are reduced to the abstract concepts of power and strength. Closest natural equivalent translation avoids both the unnatural translation found in many English Bibles and the meaningful but less vivid translation offered by others. In GOD'S WORD^® the phrase is translated "with his mighty hand and powerful arm."

GOD'S WORD^® does not indiscriminately use any one of many possible natural equivalent translations. It insists on the closest natural equivalent in order to translate meaning clearly while preserving the text's literary integrity.

Contrasting Closest Natural Equivalence to Form Equivalence
Most well-known English Bible translations were produced using the traditional approach to translation which is called form equivalence. Most translations of the Bible available in bookstores today use some variation of form-equivalent translation.

Strict form equivalence translates word-by-word, matching each Hebrewor Greek word with one or more English words. However, strict form equivalence would produce very difficult English. For instance, John 3:16 would read:

This way for loved the God the world so that the son the only he gave so that all those believing in him would not perish but have life eternal.

In essence, form-equivalent translations adjust the grammar and syntax of the source language text only enough to produce a reasonably recognizable and understandable English translation. They do not adjust the English any more than necessary. Form-equivalent translation results in an English textthat is a combination of English words, some English syntax, and some Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek syntax. For instance, one Bible's translation of Numbers 35:18 is

Or anyone who strikes another with a weapon of wood in hand that could cause death, and death ensues, is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

For instance, the beginning of Psalm 1 in one Bible translation reads:

Blessed is the man who does not stand in the way of sinners.

Another example is Genesis 27:19:

qwm-n' sbh w'klh msydy

Stand up, sit down, and eat this meat I've hunted

Contrasting Closest Natural Equivalence to Function Equivalence
Because of the problems associated with form-equivalent translation, another translation theory was developed. It is called function-equivalent translation. (An older name for this theory is dynamic-equivalent translation.) Function equivalence takes the differences between the source language and the target language seriously. [See From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating by Jan De Waard and Eugene A. Nida (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986).]

In function equivalence the translator's goal is to ensure that the meaning of the translation to a native speaker of the target language is the same as the meaning of the source language text. The function-equivalent theory is not concerned with preserving the maximum number of characteristics (e.g., word order, grammar, syntax, idioms, etc.) of the source language text. It recognizes that if a translation preserves the maximum number of these characteristics, it is often unnatural in the target language.

Function equivalence is a great advance in translation theory. It helps the translator to focus on the goal of translation and not merely on technical matters concerning the source language. Function equivalence avoids producing translations that would convey the wrong meaning, no meaning, ambiguous meaning, or that would contain bad grammar or style. It conveys the meaning of the text in ways that are natural and meaningful in the target language.

While the function equivalence theory of translation has the proper focus, in practice it has produced English translations that have lost some of the source text's meaning. One reason for this is that translators using function equivalence have often attempted to translate the Bible so that all passages can be understood on a common, predefined conceptual level.

For instance, one Bible translation available today is marketed in an edition specifically translated for children. While many parts of the Bible are appropriate for children, other parts were never intended for children. Certainly, Song of Songs is not for children. Job is a complicated and difficult book in Hebrew. In trying to make these books function on levels for which they were not intended, the translators risk miscommunication by oversimplifying or destroying the literary or artistic integrity of the text they are translating.

In printed texts meaning is conveyed not only by words and sentences, but also by the author's choice of literary devices based on his assumptions about his readers' concerns and their ability to think abstractly, and by his skill in using language. In the Bible these factors vary from book to book. A translation must take into account not only how meaning is communicated in the target language, but also on what level that meaning was intended to be communicated by the original author in the source text.

One function-equivalent translation states in its preface that it is intended to "be read with ease and understanding by readers of all ages." That is, every book of the Bible is intended to be clear to children as well as adults. However, Paul probably never envisioned his letter to the Ephesians as being read by children. To make Ephesians understandable for children, this function-equivalent translation from Ephesians 1:19 says

I want you to know about the great and mighty power that God has for us followers.

Some of the books of the Bible contain material that is very difficult to understand. Others contain relatively easy-to-understand material. Translators should not make the text more difficult to understand in the target language than the source text was (as form equivalence can do). However, translators should also not assume the responsibility for making the text simpler than the source text was (as function equivalence can do).

Closest Natural Equivalence Maintains the Balance
Closest natural equivalence shares some of the concerns of function-equivalent translation: It focuses upon meaning and naturalness in the target language. However, closest natural equivalence does not attempt to make all books or passages function on the same level. The more difficult books of the Bible (e.g., Job, Ephesians) are translated to be on the same level of difficulty as they are in the original languages (but no more difficult).

Closest natural equivalence also shares some of the concerns of form-equivalent translation. For example, abstract concepts in Greek and Hebrew are translated into abstract concepts in English, and concrete concepts remain concrete in translation. Figures of speech are translated by figures of speech in English when possible. Poetry is not prose with a special layout on the page. Instead, poetry is translated as poetry.(Like much poetry, biblical poetry is not characterized by pretentious language or artificial meter and rhyme. However, its modes of expression, including parallelism and vocabulary, are distinct from prose.)

Closest natural equivalence's emphasis on naturalness in the target language may, at times, force a compromise. Some metaphors in Hebrew may have to become similes in English to communicate properly. At other times, figurative language cannot be translated by an understandable figure of speech in English. The difference between closest natural equivalence and form equivalence is that a form, such as a metaphor, is not forced into English in closest natural equivalence. On the other hand, the difference between closest natural equivalence and function equivalence is that a metaphor will not be eliminated. A way will be found to express it in natural English.

The goal of closest natural equivalence is to communicate as much of the source text as possible in a way that is useable for the type of readers that the original author targeted. At the same time, closest natural equivalence recognizes that not every book of the Bible was intended for every reader. Therefore, in GOD'S WORD^® Ecclesiastes is harder to read than Genesis. Second Peter is more difficult than Mark. The Scriptures contain a variety of writings. Novice Christians can find portions that speak clearly to them. As they grow and mature, they can find other portions that challenge them further. Closest natural equivalence recognizes that translation should not obscure meaning and make the Bible more difficult to read than it ought to be (as form equivalence may do). But closest natural equivalence also recognizes that Scripture allows for growth and maturity. Therefore, closest natural equivalence does not simplify concepts or run roughshod over the literary artistry of the Scriptures (as function equivalence may do).

Since closest natural equivalence attempts to balance these and many other factors, translation can never be completely objective. It involves subjective judgments. Even when operating under the assumptions of closest natural equivalence, translators cannot produce a perfect translation. Translators use cautious judgment and maintain a keen awareness of all the factors needed for a full understanding of the source text. Among other things, translators need to understand the original language's grammar and syntax, appreciate and understand literary devices used by the original authors, understand what kind of audience the original author had in mind when writing, and understand the modern target audience and its language. Because these factors call for balance and judgment, every translation (even those produced using closest natural equivalence) can be improved. However, one major reason for the high quality of GOD'S WORD^® is that closest natural equivalence was the theory used in its production. Moreover, the translators of GOD'S WORD^® understood that natural, readable English was not merely a matter of writing simplified English. A number of factors contribute to making an English text readable and these factors also must be balanced.