Nehemiah 8:8 They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.(ESV)
Most Christians have a preferred Bible translation.
Some grew up with the King James Version and can almost hear the voice of a parent, grandparent, or pastor when they read it. Some prefer the New King James Version because it preserves much of that familiar language while making it easier to understand. Some, like me, use the ESV because they want something that stays relatively close to the wording and structure of the original languages. Others prefer the NIV, NLT, BSB, The Message, The Passion Translation, or one of the dozens of other English translations available today.
Then the arguments begin. Which one is the best? Which one is the most accurate? Which one should Christians use?
Maybe we should begin with a different question.
What is the translation in your hand trying to do?
The Bible wasn’t originally written in English. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with portions written in Aramaic. The New Testament was largely written in Greek. Every English Bible therefore stands between an ancient text and a modern reader, trying to carry meaning from one language into another.
That sounds simple until you actually try to translate something.
Languages don’t work like substitution ciphers where every Hebrew or Greek word has exactly one English word sitting across from it. Words can carry several meanings. Grammar works differently. Sentence structure changes. Idioms sometimes make no sense when translated literally.
Imagine trying to explain the English phrase, “It’s raining cats and dogs,” to someone who’d never encountered the expression. A perfectly word-for-word translation might leave them wondering why animals are falling out of the sky.
A translator has to make a decision. Do I preserve the words? Do I preserve what the words mean? Sometimes those are the same thing. Sometimes they aren’t.
That tension has produced several different approaches to Bible translation.
Staying Close to the Words
Translations such as the ESV and NASB deliberately lean toward what’s called formal equivalence.
Crossway describes the ESV as “essentially literal” and says it seeks to reproduce the wording, structure, and style of the biblical writers as closely as English allows. The Lockman Foundation describes the NASB similarly, explaining that formal equivalence attempts to preserve both the meaning of the words and the grammatical structure of the original languages.[1][2]
The NKJV also sits toward this side of the translation spectrum. Even The Passion Translation’s own explanation of translation methods places the NKJV and ESV among translations seeking a relatively close connection between the form of the biblical languages and their English rendering.[3]
That can be incredibly useful when studying Scripture closely.
If a word appears repeatedly in a passage, a more formal translation will often make that repetition easier to see.
Sentence structure may remain visible. Connections between passages may be easier to recognize. But there’s a tradeoff.
Sometimes the resulting English can sound stiff. Sometimes an ancient expression survives into English even though a modern reader may not immediately understand what it means.
A translation can preserve the shape of a sentence so carefully that the reader has to work harder to understand it.
That doesn’t make the translation bad. It tells you what tool you’re holding.
Staying Close to the Meaning
Other translations move farther toward what’s usually called functional or dynamic equivalence.
Instead of asking primarily, “How can we preserve the form of this sentence?”, the translator asks, “How can we communicate what this sentence meant to its original audience in natural English?”
The NIV deliberately describes its method as a balance between preserving the original form and communicating the meaning clearly. Biblica points out that a perfectly literal translation can sometimes communicate the wrong idea because languages don’t structure thoughts in identical ways.[4]
The NLT moves farther toward meaning-based translation. Its translation committee says it translates literally when that communicates clearly, but moves toward a more dynamic rendering when a literal expression would be confusing, misleading, or unnatural in English.[5]
Again, there’s a tradeoff.
These translations can make difficult passages considerably easier to understand. They can also require the translator to make more interpretive decisions. The farther we move from reproducing the form of the original sentence, the more frequently someone has to decide: What does this sentence mean?
That doesn’t automatically make the translation unreliable. It does mean we should understand what’s happening.
Then There Are Very Free Renderings
The Message is an interesting example. People frequently call it a paraphrase, but its publisher describes it as a translation made from the original Hebrew and Greek. NavPress is also unusually clear about what they believe its purpose is: “The Message is not a study Bible, but rather a reading Bible.”[6]
Eugene Peterson wanted people to experience Scripture in conversational English. The publisher says his goal was especially to reach people who found the Bible distant and people who’d read familiar passages so often that they no longer really heard them.[7]
That tells me exactly how I should use it. I probably wouldn’t build an argument about the precise meaning of a Greek word from The Message. That’s not what it was designed to do.
But if I’ve read a passage hundreds of times and my eyes have started racing over familiar words without really seeing them, I might read The Message just to hear the passage phrased differently.
Sometimes unfamiliar wording makes us stop. That can be useful.
Then We Come to The Passion Translation
The Passion Translation describes its own method as meaning-for-meaning or essential equivalence. Its website says that the essential meaning of a passage should sometimes take priority over the literal form of the original words. It also describes the translation as “expansive” and says it seeks to communicate not only meaning but the heart, emotion, and passion of the biblical text.[3][8]
That immediately tells us something important.
If you’re reading TPT beside the ESV and TPT contains considerably more language, you shouldn’t automatically assume every English word in TPT has a corresponding Greek or Hebrew word behind it. TPT itself acknowledges that some words and phrases are added to make what its translators believe is implied by the context explicit.[3]
Again, knowing that doesn’t require someone to throw the translation away. It requires them to know what they’re reading.
That distinction is going to become increasingly important.
The Translations Aren’t Competing to Perform Exactly the Same Job
This is where I think many arguments about Bible translations go wrong. We line several translations up beside each other and ask which one is best as though they were all attempting exactly the same thing.
They’re not.
A hammer is excellent at driving nails. A screwdriver is terrible at driving nails. That doesn’t make the screwdriver defective. It means I am using the wrong tool for the job.
If I’m closely studying the grammatical structure of Romans, I’m probably going to spend more time in translations such as the ESV or NASB. If I’m trying to follow the larger flow of a difficult passage, the NIV or NLT may help clarify what I’m reading. If a passage has become so familiar that I can almost recite it without thinking about it, I may read The Message simply because its unusual wording forces me to hear it again.
I may read the KJV because its language exposes connections I remember from years ago. I may open the NKJV beside it to see those same passages in more current English. I may pull up the BSB and compare another modern rendering. I may read TPT and notice an expression that catches my attention. Then I can ask the most important question: Where did that come from?
That question isn’t disrespectful. It’s Bible study.
Don’t Be Afraid of Differences
Sometimes Christians become uncomfortable when translations disagree. I understand why.
We believe Scripture matters, so different wording can feel threatening. But differences between translations can actually become one of the most useful tools available to someone studying the Bible.
When five translations say almost exactly the same thing and a sixth says something noticeably different, don’t panic. Don’t immediately assume the different one has discovered some hidden truth either.
Just stop. Look. Ask questions.
Why did they translate it differently?
Was there another possible meaning for the original word?
Was there a textual variation among manuscripts?
Was an ancient idiom translated differently?
Did the translator make something implicit more explicit?
Or did the translator interpret the passage in a way the others didn’t?
You may discover something important. You may also discover that one translation simply went farther than the original text supports. Either way, you learned something.
Read the Bible You Will Actually Read
There’s another side to this that I don’t want us to lose.
I would rather see someone reading Scripture in a translation I wouldn’t personally choose than watch a Bible I approve of gather dust on their shelf.
If The Passion Translation makes someone excited to open the Bible every morning, I’m not interested in snatching it out of their hands. If someone understands the NLT better than the ESV, read the NLT. If the KJV is the Bible that’s been beside you for forty years and its words are written across your memory, keep reading it. If The Message causes a familiar passage to suddenly make you stop and think, stop and think. But don’t let any single translation become the boundary of your Bible.
Put another one beside it. Then another.
Not because God’s Word changes from translation to translation. Because our attempts to carry God’s Word from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English involve human decisions.
Some translations preserve more of the words. Some preserve more of the natural flow of the thought. Some explain. Some expand. Some deliberately make the language unfamiliar again.
Understanding those differences helps us use each one wisely.
Nehemiah says they read God’s Word and then “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.”
Understanding matters. So does knowing when someone has moved from translating the words to explaining what they believe those words mean.
Tomorrow, I want to take this one step farther.
Instead of asking which translation we should read, we’re going to talk about what happens when we read several of them together.
Because there’s a simple rule that can completely change the way we study Scripture: When translations agree, keep reading. When translations disagree, slow down.
That may be exactly where the digging needs to begin.
References
1. English Standard Version — Translation Philosophy, Crossway/ESV.org. The ESV describes itself as an “essentially literal” translation emphasizing word-for-word correspondence while accounting for differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom.
2. New American Standard Bible — Translation Philosophy, The Lockman Foundation. The NASB describes its method as formal equivalence, seeking to preserve the wording, grammar, and structure of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek while remaining readable in English.
3. The Passion Translation — Frequently Asked Questions. TPT distinguishes formal or word-for-word translation from functional or thought-for-thought translation, places the NKJV and ESV toward the formal side, describes its own method as prioritizing meaning, and acknowledges that some italicized material isn’t explicitly present in the source-language manuscripts but is considered implied by context.
4. New International Version — Translation Philosophy, Biblica. The NIV describes its approach as balancing transparency to the form of the original text with clear, natural English.
5. New Living Translation — Translation Process, Tyndale. The NLT committee describes using more literal rendering when it communicates naturally and more dynamic rendering when literal wording would be confusing, misleading, or unnatural in English.
6. The Message — NavPress. NavPress specifically describes The Message as “not a study Bible, but rather a reading Bible.”
7. The Message — Purpose and History, NavPress. Peterson described his goal as helping both unfamiliar readers and longtime Bible readers hear Scripture with freshness and immediacy.
8. The Passion Translation — Translation Philosophy. TPT describes itself as an “essential equivalence” or “meaning-for-meaning” translation and says it sometimes goes farther than literal translations in an effort to communicate what it understands as the essence of the text.
Leave a comment