This series is designed to help people better understand the Bible and how it speaks to us. Read the series Introduction post to learn how this series is designed to help you.

Our previous post introduced you to the concept of translation — definitions, goals, expectations, etc. This post will explain why translations are so different.

Look At All These Translations…

Have you ever noticed that we have a bajillion English translations of the Bible, and many of them read quite differently? Let’s talk about why these differences occur and how we can still grow closer to God through the text that we have.

Translation Philosophies

Translations are developed by translation committees, and the first order of business for the committee is to determine the translation philosophy they intend to follow. There are three major translation philosophies, and each one yields different translation results. This is why some of our English Bibles read differently at times. Let’s take a look at the three major translation philosophies.

Formal Equivalent

This philosophy is commonly referred to as ‘literal’ or ‘word for word’, but these terms are actually misleading. ‘Literal’ or ‘word for word’ translations do not exist. Instead, what we have are formal equivalent translations.

The formal equivalent philosophy seeks to provide a coherent translation that provides an English-equivalent word for each word in the original language when / where it is possible. This philosophy also seeks to preserve the original language’s sentence structure within the English translation. The challenge is to produce a coherent English translation. Even formal equivalent translations have to deviate from the original language’s structure at times in order to render a readable English translation. Thus, they aren’t ‘literal’ or ‘word for word’.¹ These translation can feel wooden or clunky at times not because they are poor quality but because of the formal equivalent philosophy.

Examples: King James Bible (KJV), English Standard Bible (ESV), New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Dynamic Equivalent

This philosophy is commonly referred to as ‘thought for thought’. Dynamic equivalents seek to communicate the meaning of the original language into the target language. They seek to replicate the impact the original text had on the original audience to the modern reader. Where a formal equivalent will preserve a Hebrew idiom, for example, a dynamic equivalent will try to use an equivalent English phrase or idiom so that the modern reader understands the imagery behind the saying. Let me show you an example:

Drink water from your own cistern,

flowing water from your own well.

Proverbs 5:15 ESV

Drink water from your own well—

Share your love with only your wife.

Proverbs 5:15 NLT

You can see how the New Living Translation took the second of those two parallel statements and translated it in a way to convey the meaning for the modern reader. For what it’s worth, I think the NLT translators are spot on here. The ESV correctly translates the words of the Hebrew idiom, but the NLT translated the meaning of the idiom because its translators knew English speakers don’t think in ancient Hebraic idioms.

A major difference between the  formal and dynamic equivalent philosophies is the degree of translator interpretation. A formal equivalent will leave interpretive decisions (such as what does the second line of Prov. 5:15 mean) up to the reader, whereas a dynamic will make more of those interpretive decisions for the reader. Thus, the dynamic equivalent translations are generally considered quite a bit more readable than the formal equivalents.

However, dynamic equivalent translations can present problems for students wishing to perform precise word, grammatical, and theological studies because the original equivalent words and sentence structure are not preserved to the same extent as formal equivalent translations.

Examples: New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT)

Optimal Equivalent

This philosophy is a blend between the previous two philosophies. Optimal equivalents seek to preserve the original words and structure to the extent that smooth, readable English is preserved. When that is not possible, they dip in the waters of dynamic equivalents. When doing so, they then will often include a formal equivalent translation in a footnote for reference. This hybrid approach allows for a focus on original-equivalent words and structures, while leveraging the more readable dynamic equivalent philosophy where necessary.

Examples: Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

How Does This Information Help?

Our experience in reading, studying, and meditating on Scripture has told us the more we understand the Bible and how God uses it to reveal Himself, the closer to Him we grow. Our hope and prayer is that as your understanding grows, you also find yourself growing closer to God. We encounter people regularly who are concerned that they are reading the ‘wrong’ translation. Understanding translation philosophies should help alleviate some of that concern. If you have a favorite translation, great! Now you have some basic understanding of why the NIV differs from the ESV or NASB. Translation philosophy is a driving force behind those differences.

Moreover, I am exceedingly confident that our modern English translations accurately communicate God’s Word to us.

Final Note:

Much of our information on translation philosophies is based on the Translator’s Preface in the CSB. Just about every Modern English translation has a translator’s preface at the front of their Bible or on their website. I encourage you to take a look and read their comments. It is quite enlightening.

Lastly, we STRONGLY encourage you to use translations that were developed through a translation committee. These committees are made up of top tier scholars who specialize in the original languages and have decades of experience in conveying the meaning of the Bible to others. There are translations available from one individual person instead of committees. While translating the entire Bible is a remarkable personal achievement, one individual is not capable of being an expert in every book of the Bible to the same extent as a committee.

Where Are We In The Series?

This post concludes the first overarching segment of this series: what is the Bible, and how did it get into its current form?

Our next segment spans posts 7-14 and focuses on how the Bible communicates to us and how we understand what it means.

We love this stuff, and we look forward to seeing you in the next post.

Until then,

Happy Bibleing!

Footnotes

1. Let’s look at a fun example. The following is a ‘literal’ / ‘word for word’ translation of John 3:16
   
   thus for he loved the god the world, therefore the son the only one he gave, so that all the believing one in him not might perish but he/she/it might have life eternal.
   
   This ‘literal’ translation is incoherent because it does not present the meaning of the words in a way that an English thinker can understand them. Thus, it falls short of the purpose of translation.
   ↩︎