Lost in Translation: A Closer Look at Bible Translations

Different wording does not automatically mean a conspiracy

Open three Bible translations and you may find three ways of expressing the same passage. That can unsettle us, or it can invite better questions. What text did the translators use? What meaning were they trying to communicate? This overview considers translation approaches and why a careful comparison can help us read more thoughtfully.

One of the most renowned Bible translations is the King James Version (KJV), which was initially published in 1611. The KJV has left a profound mark on English literature and language, captivating generations of readers with its majestic prose. Nevertheless, there exists a faction that adheres to the "King James Only" perspective, asserting that the KJV is the sole authentic translation of the Bible. This viewpoint is widely deemed as unfounded and impractical, given the advancements in biblical scholarship and the unearthing of older manuscripts since the KJV's inception.

In an attempt to offer a more modern rendition of the Bible, the New King James Version (NKJV) was released in 1982. The NKJV aimed to preserve the literary elegance of the KJV while updating the language to cater to contemporary readers' sensibilities. However, akin to its predecessor, the NKJV also faced scrutiny for its adherence to some outdated translation methods.

The Revised Standard Version (RSV), first published in 1952, emerged as a more literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, endeavoring to provide a more precise rendering of the Bible for modern audiences. Balancing accuracy with readability, the RSV garnered favor among scholars and theologians.

The New American Standard New Testament appeared in 1963, followed by the complete NASB in 1971. Its translation approach emphasizes close correspondence with the wording of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, making it a useful comparison for readers studying how a passage is expressed.

The English Standard Version describes its approach as essentially literal. That is its publisher’s stated method, not a claim that any translation can avoid interpretive decisions. Compare particular passages and consult the translation’s own explanation before assigning it to a broad category. Read the ESV preface.

Conversely, the New International Version (NIV), introduced in 1978, adopts a thought-for-thought translation methodology, emphasizing readability and clarity for contemporary readers. While the NIV enjoys popularity for its accessibility, it has been criticized for taking liberties with the original texts, potentially obfuscating certain linguistic nuances.

The Amplified Bible, first published in 1965, seeks to encapsulate the richness and depth of the original Hebrew and Greek texts by offering multiple interpretations of key words and phrases. Respected for its comprehensive approach to translation, the Amplified Bible furnishes readers with a nuanced understanding of the biblical text.

Translation methods should be described individually rather than forced into two neat camps. The Amplified Bible’s publisher describes its method as formal equivalence with amplification within the text; it should not simply be labeled a thought-for-thought translation. Readers should consult each translation’s own preface and compare particular passages before judging the approach. Read the Amplified Bible publisher’s explanation.

An interlinear can help you see which original-language words stand behind a translation. It cannot do all the interpreting for you. Compare translations, consult sound language resources, and keep the sentence and its context in view. A dictionary entry is a tool, not a license to make a word mean everything at once.

Ask about the text behind the translation

The debate between the Latin Vulgate and Textus Receptus translations of the Bible is also noteworthy. Translated by St. Jerome in the 4th century AD, the Latin Vulgate served as the standard Latin version of the Bible in the Western Church for over a millennium. In contrast, the Textus Receptus is the printed Greek text of the New Testament that served as the foundation for many translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages during the Reformation period.

These are different kinds of texts: the Vulgate is a Latin translation and revision tradition; Textus Receptus names printed Greek New Testament editions. Comparing them requires attention to language, manuscript evidence and editorial decisions—not treating both as translations.

In his preface to the four Gospels, Jerome explains that he revised differing Latin copies by comparison with Greek manuscripts. That is evidence of textual revision, not the confession sometimes attributed to him. Read Jerome’s preface.

In contrast, the Textus Receptus has been favored by numerous Protestant denominations, notably those of the Reformed and Evangelical traditions. Based on a smaller number of Greek manuscripts, predominantly those from the Byzantine text type, advocates of the Textus Receptus argue that it offers a more faithful representation of the original New Testament texts.

The Douay-Rheims Bible reflects the Latin Vulgate tradition. The Nova Vulgata is a modern revision promulgated in 1979; it should not be described as centuries old. Respect for a tradition does not excuse blurring its chronology. Read the Vatican promulgation.

The King James Version and New King James Version use the Textus Receptus for their New Testament base. The ESV uses a modern critical Greek text, alongside the Masoretic Hebrew text for the Old Testament. These are different textual foundations, even though all three translations are widely read by Protestants.

When a wording surprises you, identify the particular phrase and compare editions. Broad accusations tell us less than a careful example. The aim is to understand the translators’ choices, including where an interpretation deserves closer examination.

For instance, a Bible verse that may be interpreted differently based on the translation is Proverbs 31:10-31, delineating the ideal wife. In the NIV, this passage designates the woman as a "wife of noble character," accentuating her virtues and strength. Conversely, other translations like the King James Version (KJV) employ the phrase "virtuous woman," imparting a slightly distinct tone. The term "virtuous" conveys connotations of moral purity and righteousness, while "noble" indicates a more general sense of dignity and honor. Although both translations encapsulate the essence of the passage, the choice of words can subtly influence the reader's understanding of the woman's character.

Another illustration of a verse where the translation could sway the meaning is Psalm 23:4. In the NIV, this verse reads, "Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me." By utilizing the term "valley," this translation conveys a profound sense of depth and darkness, accentuating the challenges and tribulations confronted by the speaker. Conversely, other translations, such as the English Standard Version (ESV), employ the phrase "the valley of the shadow of death," introducing a layer of intensity and foreboding to the imagery. This choice of wording can instigate a more emotional response from the reader, underscoring the speaker's reliance on God in the face of mortal peril.

Matthew 5:9 provides another useful comparison. Both the NIV and NASB use “peacemakers”; the difference here is that the NIV says “children of God” and the NASB says “sons of God.” Reading the actual wording helps us discuss translation choices without creating a contrast the editions do not contain.

Read carefully before declaring a winner

Choose one passage, compare two or three translations, and ask why their wording differs. Read the notes and the surrounding paragraph. We can value the Bible deeply without pretending that translating ancient languages into modern English is a mechanical exercise.

Faith, hope, and love in action through Christ and kindness. Raise a Hand. Build a Bridge. Find a local ministry and put what you believe into practice.