- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (7/7)
- Next Post »A La Carte (7/8)
Every Word of God
- 07/07/08
- 60
Imagine, for a moment. You wake up one morning and, as you stumble downstairs to grope for the coffee maker, you notice that the front door of your house is wide open, the brisk morning air blowing into the room and clearing your mind just a little bit. You stare at the door for a moment to process the fact that it is open. Your first thought, of course, is for your family. You race upstairs and throw open the door of your son’s room. He is lying peacefully asleep. Breathing a prayer of thanks you cross the hall, opening the door to your daughter’s room. Her blankets are in a heap beside the bed, her nightlight on, but she is nowhere to be seen. Frantically you search the house, calling for her, begging her to answer you. But she is gone.
Before you can pick up the phone to dial 911, it rings. You answer it before the second ring and discover that it is a reporter from a local newspaper. He awoke this morning to find a strange package on his front doorstep. Opening it, he found that it contained a warning that someone had taken your daughter. A letter detailed a series of steps you would have to take if you ever hoped to see her alive again.
The reporter begins to read the letter, but you shout, “I don’t have time for this! Just give me a summary!” Or do you? Of course not! It would be ludicrous for you to do anything but ask him to read the letter slowly and with dead accuracy. You would not want the summary but would want to hear and understand and ponder the kidnapper’s every word. You would not want his understanding of the kidnapper’s demands, but would want to hear the words yourself so you could come to your own understanding. Only then might you ask for his understanding of it. You would want to know, study, understand and follow every detail of that letter.
Words, it seems, are important. This applies not only to series of words, but to individual words. We see the importance of words all the time in legal documents, recipes, love letters, interviews and quotations. Think of a courtroom. Even if you have never been involved in a court case, you may have seen cases tried on some of the court shows like People’s Court or Judge Judy. Maybe you took time off work to watch the O.J. Simpson trial. When a lawyer or judge asks a person to recount the details of a case, does he allow the person to provide a summary, or does he dig deeper and demand the exact words and phrases that were used? It is not enough for a person to testify that “the defendant threatened my life.” The judge will demand to know the exact words the defendant used. Did he say, “Give me your purse or I’ll kill you?” or did he say, “Give me your purse or else…?” In either case there was a threat, but only one can be accurately shown to be a threat against the person’s life. The other was merely interpreted to be so. In this instance it may or may not be the case.
Whether following instructions to find one’s daughter or standing before a court in an attempt to put an assailant in prison, individual words play an important and even crucial role. It strikes me as odd, then, that though we place such importance on individual words in so many areas of life, we are so willing to read translations of the Bible that, in many ways, are mere summaries of the actual words. If we agree, and I’m sure most of us do, that there are no words more important than those written in Scripture, why do we read versions of it that make a mockery of the words that were breathed out by God?
Consider just a couple of quick examples. Romans 13:4 discusses the role of civil government. The authorities, says Paul, have the right to “bear the sword.”
“But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (ESV) The word translated as “sword” is machaira and means “sword.”
But consider this passage in some less-literal translations:
“But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong.” (NLT)
“If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is.” (CEV)
“But if you’re breaking the rules right and left, watch out. The police aren’t there just to be admired in their uniforms. God also has an interest in keeping order, and he uses them to do it.” (The Message)
Noticeably absent from these three translations is the word “sword.” The translators have seen fit to provide what they feel is the main idea of the passage, that the civil authorities have the right to punish those who do wrong. But this is a verse that has long been used to discuss the Christian view on capital punishment. It is an important verse in this context and in others. But in these three translations there is nothing to discuss, for the “sword” has been removed and punishment, which may be imprisonment, fines or community service, among other things, has been substituted. This same word is used in Acts 12:2 where we read of the murder of James the brother of John. In this passage the NLT speaks explicitly of a sword, while the CEV suggests one with the words “cut his head off” and The Message speaks of “murder.” In either case, the translators have, in this second passage, translated a word in a way that is inconsistent with how they have translated it in another passage. They have done so in order to interpret and not to make a more clear translation.
Let’s look at a second example. A standard translation of Psalm 32:1 might read as follows: “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” (ESV) This translation is not a transliteration, or direct translation of word position, punctuation, and so on, but is a readable translation that attempts to translate each word that is in the original language. Now let’s look at a few translations from less-literal versions of the Bible.
“Count yourself lucky, how happy you must be—you get a fresh start, your slate’s wiped clean.” (The Message)
“Oh, what joy for those whose rebellion is forgiven, whose sin is put out of sight!” (NLT)
“Our God, you bless everyone whose sins you forgive and wipe away.” (CEV)
What has become of the word “covered?” It has been replaced by “wiped clean,” “put out of site,” or “wipe away.” But is “covered” not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book? Should we, as the reader, not have access to that word? Conversely, “fresh start” is foreign to the text and is provided as an addition to the passage without alerting the reader that these are not God’s words, but the translator’s.
Consider even the words of Solomon, written to his lover, describing her unsurpassed beauty. “Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead.” (ESV) The Message renders this, “…like a flock of goats in the distance streaming down a hillside in the sunshine.” Note that addition of “sunshine.” The author may claim poetic license, but the fact is that he has added a word that is foreign to the text. The New Living Translation adds a small amount of interpretation, suggesting that her hair falls in waves. “Your hair falls in waves, like a flock of goats frisking down the slopes of Gilead.” If I were to write a love letter to my wife, do you think she would want it word-for-word, or does she merely desire access to the content of my thoughts? Again, translators have interpreted rather than translated.
What I mean to show in these examples is that anything other than an essentially literal translation of the Bible may work to subtly undermine the Christian’s confidence in the Scriptures. This is a topic that I cannot adequately cover in only a small article and I do realize there are complexities I have not considered. But on the basis of these examples I would urge you to consider this matter on your own. As Christians, people of the Book, we need to have confidence in our text. What basis do we have for our faith if we cannot have confidence in the Bible? We cannot overestimate the importance of ensuring that what we study is the clearest, best, most accurate translation of God’s Words that we can possibly find.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (60)
Great post, Tim.
One powerful example that Bruce Ware pointed me to in a discussion about translations is Romans 4:5. Check out the comparison:
“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (ESV)
“But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners” (NLT)
What happened to the word “ungodly”? To the Jew, soaked in Jewish tradition, this is one of the most shocking statements they could possibly here—and it’s so central to Paul’s whole argument! The word is there! Why would it be removed? It’s removed because they wanted to use “people” so that they could use the gender-neutral “their faith” instead of the generic-masculine “his faith”.
So, in this case, a powerful, essential biblical word is dropped because of a linguistic-philosophical presupposition that masculine gender pronouns are bad.
At the very least, it certainly displays priorities.
I have some thoughts on the post as a whole, which I will post later, but I wanted to respond to Julian’s comment regarding Romans 4:5.
The NLT does indeed translate the word asebe, using the word “sinners.” The sentence structure of the NLT varies from the Greek, not to serve a gender-agenda, but to clarify meaning.
Of course we could not flesh out all of the intricacies in this discussion in this post or comment thread, but let me suggest Eugene Peterson’s “Eat This Book.” In the final section he makes a strong case (from an evangelical perspective) for why he translated the Message as he did.
Also the Better Bible Blog talks about this stuff all of the time. The discussion there centers around posts from translators, linguists, etc. so it’s always interesting even if you disagree with the content.
Sure, a persuasive case can be made for one version over against another. But we run smack into a subjectivity (“personal preference”) issue if we press that too far. Even “essentially literal” (whatever that means) translations are interpretations.
The best practice, it seems to me, if one isn’t fluent in the original languages, is to consult multiple versions — because sometimes a dynamic equivalent or loose paraphrase captures the gist wonderfully.
Good post. I really notice how the tone changes in those altered passages, from a stern warning to what feels more like friendly advice - from “be afraid” to “you should be afraid” and “you ought to be afraid”. I also notice the exclusion of the reference to God’s wrath (particularly in the NLT and the Message).
I have noticed this tone change frequently coming from the pulpit (though not at my church), as ministers try to smooth over clearly rough words to make them more palatable to listeners, as though they think God seems unreasonble and needs His ministers to soften His speech.
It was nice of you to make such an introduction :-) I must confess, I would not read the whole post, if you jumped into comparison of essentially literal translations with others right from the start.
Crossway Books has a free PDF on this topic at http://www.gnpcb.org/product/1581347308, written by Leland Ryken, titled “Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible Translation Differences”. I think you know it already, but perhaps the URL would help other visitors.
My fear with our current culture reading so many of the newer translations, is their inability to read and understand the English language. Most people that I know that use the NLT and the Message paraphrased Bibles, do it not so much because they like the way the words are watered down, but because they can’t understand NKJV, let alone KJV. If you look at the way our culture carries phones around and uses text to communicate ideas, it may not be long before there will be other paraphrased Bibles! How about “The Texters Bible”, which of course is in 30,000 words or less.
I think Catherine is on to something.
Certainly I know there are folks out there who wish to water down the Bible, soften some of the harsher language, neutralize gender, etc. We call these people theological liberals.
But there are many conservative Christians, I think, who simply don’t want to read a more literal translation (ESV, NASB, etc.) because they find them too difficult to understand.
We ought to be ashamed of this. Christians must be people of the Word and we must be counter-cultural. Frankly, not all of us are going to be linguists or scholars of any sort. But most of us are shirking our responsibility to really study the Bible, because deep down we don’t really believe it is worthwhile. It takes too much time and effort. We’d rather get “the gist” from a CliffsNotes version so we can turn off our brains and watch American Idol. I’m certainly willing to admit my own laziness. God, help me to become a better student of your precious, eternal Word!
Tim, I appreciate this post and your willingness to suggest that some translations are dangerous. There is a lot to chew on here — how we think about the text of the Bible points to our beliefs about God.
I really appreciate this! As a teacher it’s so important to me to have the authors real meaning trump my interp.
Catherine - I wasn’t sure whether you were joking about the “Texter’s Bible”, but I’m appalled that it does in fact exist.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ns2w7
http://www.biblesociety.com.au/smsbible/
Your version of the NLT is from the older first edition text, published in 1996. After that, the translation committee decided to make the NLT even clearer and more accurate. The second edition (2004) was the fruit of this effort. Please consider your evaluation in light of the latest edition’s translation. (Changes in italics)
Romans 13:4 reads, “The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.”
Acts 12:2 still includes the word sword.
Psalm 32:1 reads, “Oh, what joy for those whose disobedience is forgiven, whose sin is put out of sight!”
Thanks.
Another more far-reaching problem is the continual mistranslation of the greek word “duolos”, which can only mean “slave.” Beginning with the Geneva Bible, hardly any translation has the courage to render it “slave” because of the ramifications and social implication. Even the ESV capitulates. As a result, we have “bond-servant”, “servant”, etc. throughout the NT.
How fascinating, I knew that there were different translations of the Bible, but had always assumed that at least the basic text would be the same. In fact, I have often wondered WHY there are so many different versions and for what point?
I have just dashed upstairs to get my Bible (NSRV anglicized version - whatever that means!) and am pleased to say that those particular verses that you picked up are pretty much the same in my Bible as in yours. So, if we had Bible study together at least we be on the same page, so to speak! How can anyone study together if they have different verses!?
Hi Tim,
Thanks for having the moxy to post about such a subject. I am reminded of a post that I read a few months back over at the Parchment and Pen. It was a summary of a debate between “Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace.”
Bart Ehrman essentially takes the position that the words changed in the translations make the scriptures unreliable. Dan Wallace countered that the textual changes were minor and the essential narrative of the bible is cohesive and faithful to the originals.
Its an iteresting debate and one that ties in nicely with your article.
Mike, I was actually joking. I had no idea that it actually existed. *sigh*.
Thanks for the heads up!
I know this is ESV country and I admit that it is a wonderful translation and I enjoy reading it often. But when I was looking to transition from the NIV several years ago I settled on the HCSB as my primary translation.
I do admit that when it comes down to the HCSB and ESV my primary reason for choosing the HCSB over the ESV is that I am Southern Baptist and all the Lifeway curriculum uses it. But that was certainly secondary to finding a translation that was faithful to the original languages.
One other item of interest on something that was mentioned earlier is that the HCSB does translate “duolos” as “slave”. It is one of the only modern translations that does. John MacArthur made mention of this common translation error last year at the DG conference. He also pointed out that the HCSB got it right along with one other translation that I am not able to recall.
I share Catherine’s views on the fact that many people like the translations that are easier. I know enough teens and have helped enough teenagers with their homework to know that many, many of them, even the very bright ones, have trouble concentrating on difficult texts simply because they are not expected to read a lot of difficult material. I personally wonder how much of the technology that we are exposed to demands very little attention span and thus, we struggle to read difficult texts.
Nice post. I really was hit by the Romans 13:4 different translations.I have a fine pastor who digs deep before he shares God’s Word, and has a fear of God, which is lacking in the Church today.I also attend a nice Bible study, where we study & compare 5 different translations, as we seek to understand God’s Word in a greater way. We are also blessed with an exceptional teacher, and humble servant of God to lead us. What a pivilege to study God’s Word, and yet God demands we obey, and live bt every word.
Jesus said, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Thanks for the post Tim. It does make me think about the different philosophical approaches to translating the Bible. Personally, I use literal translations (like the ESV) for my personal reading and studies. But, I have many patients in my practice who are barely literate, and I wonder if a “simpler” and more paraphrased translation would be better for them. Some paraphrased Bibles seem to do a better job than others. And somehow I feel that a “simple” Bible that is actually read is better than a “literal” Bible that is not read because it is too difficult to understand. Just thinking out loud… Thanks for the post again… Definitely thought provoking…
I posted some thoughts on this post (see comment #2 above) on the new NLT blog:
http://nltblog.com/2008/07/words-in-new-living-translation.html
Tim, thanks for this post and for contending for the faith as God has revealed it to us through the words of His Word.
The sword was one mode of punishment used by the Roman authorities. They also used other forms of punishment. When an authority “bore the sword” they were punishing people for the wrong they had done. Not many authorities today “bear the sword.” But God’s Word on civil punishment remains just as much in effect today as it did when the Roman authorities literally bore the sword. Those translations which allow current readers of the Bible to understand that Paul was referring to civil punishment for wrongs done are accurate. “Bearing the sword” had the threat of capital punishment, but many crimes did not receive capital punishment. If we want Bible readers to understand the Bible as accurately today as Paul’s readers did, we either need to footnote that “sword” was a figure of speech (metonymy) for the right to administer punishment or else find a translation equivalent in English to the meaning of “bear the sword” in Greek of Paul’s day.
Accuracy of translation of the words of God’s Word should always be our highest goal of translation. If we have to explain the meaning of some words in a translation to Bible readers, even words such as “bear the sword”, then our translation job is not finished. We must never add to the meaning of the original text but we must also never take anything away from it. Many times by literally translating those words we do one or the other, resulting in some form of inaccurate translation, as I have shown with this essay. I do understand what you are saying and laud your motivation to be truth to God and His Word. But accuracy in translation is more complex than the picture you have given in this post. Thanks, again, for this post and for allowing comments on it.
While I’ve not given this tremendous thought, there is a part of me that agrees with David—that somehow a “‘simple’ Bible that is actually read is better than a literal Bible that is not read because it is too difficult to understand.” I’ve had several arguments with people who reject any translation other than KJV, but upon further discussion it always comes out that they do not read the Bible with any regularity. I always wonder if they might read more frequently if they had an easier translation such as the one I use (NASB).
With that being said, I’ve been shocked this year in my Sunday school class when people have read from such summarized translations that they don’t even have verses, and I cannot figure out what section of the text they are reading from.
Interesting post and gives points to ponder. I never cared much for the Living Translation nor other similar paraphrases. I cut my spiritual teeth on the KJV and when I got an NIV I liked it. I also have Bibles in NKJV, ASV and NASB. Personally I tend to make comparisons and utilizing those translations in conjuction gets me to the heart of the matter on most any passage.
One observation: Several of the points brought up in the post are quite similar to ones used by KJV-Only extremists to support their claims that all other translations other than the AV (e.g. - 1611 KJV). Just something I noticed.
Sorry, Tim, but I don’t quite agree with you here. I, too, like the ESV and appreciate “essentially literal” translations. But there’s also something to be said for the production and use of more dynamic, and yes, even paraphrastic versions, to reach populations in different contexts. The ESV, NASB, HCSB, and other translations in their vein don’t communicate as well to those for whom the NLT or CEV are the Bible versions of choice. And the truth is, the NLT (I’ve not read the CEV) is a very good translation. (Some parts are better than others, I think, as is to be expected in a translation-by committee; the wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs, for instance, is as good as there is in an English Bible version.)
Your argument that individual words are important isn’t lost on me, but if stretched to its logical conclusion then all believers (and those interested in the history of civilization) really should learn biblical Greek and Hebrew; and not just learn them, but seek to master them. That’s a noble pursuit, to be sure, but not necessary to understanding Scripture.
Re: Michael O’Shay’s comment on doulos as slave -
The problem with this translation is that it’s frought with imagery borne out of the African slave trade, and so forth. In the biblical era slavery wasn’t like the kind of slavery we’re accustomed to in North America. So, while servant isn’t the best translation (and bond-servant is even more confusing), slave isn’t necessarily the best alternative either. It’s just not that simple.
Using your example from Romans 13:4: “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (ESV)If the “word” for sword is as important as you claim, then you must take it literally, i.e., as sword, and not extend it into the dynamic concept of capital punishment. If “sword” is the point, then that rules out other forms of capital punishment, doesn’t it?So, how is a dynamic ‘understanding’ of “sword” different from a dynamic ‘translation’ of sword?
I’ve posted on my blog that the NLTse should be that third Bible. But some have even gone further than that and made it their second and even first Bible.
For a translation to commend itself as faithful to the original text, it must find that balance in keeping one foot in the ancient world and the other in the our world. That balance is evident in the NLTse.
Tim, maybe you ought to add to your discussion something about the impropriety of the manufacturing of multiple translations. But maybe then you’d be left in the awkward position of arguing that the one translation left standing should be the ESV (never mind that it clearly reflects the biases of conservative, Reformed Westerners).
Ah, well, maybe this whole “I think this translation by a team of linguistic scholars is better than this other translation by a team of linguistic scholars” business is for the birds…
Mr. Tim Challies, I’ve posted a lengthy response on my blog. You may respond if you so desire. Thank you.
Matthew 18:7, one of M’Cheyne’s readings for today —
ESV: Woe to the world for temptations to sin! [2] For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! ([2] = Greek stumbling blocks)
NASB: Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Greek: , . (rough transliteration = ouai to kosmo apo ton skandalon; anagke gar elthein ta skandala, plen ouai to anthropo di’ ou to skandalon erketai.)
So I guess it’s OK to recast metaphorical language sometimes. ;)
Just a few thoughts. My primary concern is how the preface of a Bible leads the readers to have certain expectations about a Bible. For example, one would expect from the preface that a certain Bible might translate all theologically significant words fairly consistently where possible.
But here are some examples,
First example, the same Greek word and two different English words.
and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men () who will be able to teach others also. 2 Tim. 2:2
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people () 1 Tim. 2:1
Second example, “blessed” is two different Greek words, but the same in the English of the ESV.
And blessed () is she that believed ; Luke 145
Blessed () be the Lord God of Israel Luke 1:68
Third example the KJV is literal. John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. TNIV
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. KJV
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. ESV
I cannot overemphasize the fact that it is very possible to have too much confidence in any one Bible translation. For this reason many people think it is an excellent idea to have two translations that one consults regularly. Regarding the claim that a Bible is essentially literal, this is relative statement.
The NLT2 comes highly recommended by Dr. Packer as it happens. He recognizes that the ESV is a revision, but for a new translation, he also recommends the NLT2.
Good discussion about the nature of translation. One of the key things to understand is that languages are more different than many people realize. A good example is a Russian ESL joke that I’ve discussed on the NLT Study Bible blog.
This is a test.
The problem with using “summary” as an example is that it’s shorter than a full account. This comparison doesn’t apply to Bible translations.Jeff
With that being said, I’ve been shocked this year in my Sunday school class when people have read from such summarized translations that they don’t even have verses, and I cannot figure out what section of the text they are reading from.
Well, the original Bible didn’t have verses either. Chapter and verses were added much later, long after the Bible was written.
I agree that it is helpful to have some reference system so we are all on the same page (so to speak!!). But verse numbers often get in the way of an accurate understanding of the theme of a passage. There are other ways of helping us all get to the same place in the Bible. The Books of the Bible project is one of the best that exists today for helping us do better, more accurate, inductive Bible study.
Dear Tim,I too believe in the importance of individual words (in fact I am published in such works). However, you opening example of the kidnapping letter is not analogous to the situation of a translator. Your example is assuming translation IS paraphrasing [i.e., rephasing from one language into the SAME language]. A better analogy would be to have the ransom letter be in a dialect of Portugese, and you speak only American English. I would get the most knowlegable person who is fluent in the source langauge (Portugese) and in the target language (American English), and ask him to give me the most precise meaning possible of the letter and its instructions. After all, I only know English, not the source language of the letter.Would you want the ransom letter to give the meaning of the instructions, or would want it to read like an interlinear or some choppy word-by-word configuration? And what if there are cultural differences in the language of the letter? What if you miss an instruction because you wanted only one word in portugese to equal one word in English? Don’t you want to know those details as well? And what about figurative uses of certain word? And if any of the words in Portugese have more than one meaning, and those meanings are all found in the letter, do you not want each context to have the meaning (using different English words of course) to get to the meaning? Either approach (one word in Portugese must equal one word in English or the second approach, the meaning [including all its details] of the letter) will have deficiencies. But I would prefer the “meaning based” approach to get my loved one back!All the best in your endeavors to study and know the Word of God.
I know I’m late to the discussion and so likely to not be read…however I’d like to add one thing.
Does anyone really buy the idea that people want Bibles like “The Message” because anything other than the KJV is too hard to read or understand? The NASB hard to follow? Are people serious about that?
Please…no one avoids the Bible because it’s too hard to read unless they can’t read at all. In which case, teach them. This is the same silly thinking that makes some pastors avoid real doctrine from the pulpit because “people won’t be able to understand”. Baloney. The same people they say things like that about fully understand the infield fly rule, illegal motion and how to make a dead pig into a sumptuous meal.
We avoid what we think is unimportant. The rest we learn.
One other thing…
Martin Luther once said that were the original languages lost, the gospel would be lost. Far better that we should read Greek (I don’t…) or far better that we learn which words in a literal translation are idiom and which are not.
The thing is, if all we have is a dynamic equivalent then we are at the mercy of the translator who, at that point, is not a translator but a commentator.
We do need to know the real words if only because we need to avoid agenda’s as much as possible, even the agenda of the translator/commentator. Some of the newer “versions” (like the Message) are “translated” with a clear Arminian bent…but that is not the way the original reads. Without a more literal translation, where are we?
Jim’s last point is good, but not particularly useful because we don’t have hordes of people trying to undermine and misrepresent the message of the ransom note. We do have that kind of opposition/mistreatment of the Bible. We need, somehow, to provide away for the man in the pew to say “But that’s not what it SAYS” but with only dynamic equivalent “translations” he can’t.
To Daryl’s comment 38 that “We need, somehow, to provide away [sic] for the man in the pew to say ‘But that’s not what it SAYS’ but with only dynamic equivalent ‘translations’ he can’t” I’d say that’s why we have commentaries. A good commentator will explain the reasons for his/her interpretations as well as provide alternative possibilities. Reading multiple commentaries will allow the preacher to say, where it’s warranted, that “that’s not what it says (in the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic).” (Certainly, a proficient knowledge of the biblical languages is ideal, but lacking that, a good set of commentaries is better than simply looking at two or three different English Bible versions.)
To the person who’d argue that this is to leave the preacher picking and choosing the commentator he/she likes best, I agree, but I’d add that it’s basically the same thing as using only an essentially literal translation (which, in the case of any one book, has been translated by one particular scholar and then edited by a team of literary editors/stylists, who aren’t normally as competent in Greek/Hebrew).
Simply put, we need paraphrastic translations. (And yes, Packer does say the NLT is a good translation, as does Tim Keller. I respect folks like Piper and Grudem, but having heard what they’ve said about the NIV, humbly, I think they’re wrong here.) Plenty of people are willing to work hard at reading their Bibles, but not all of them possess the requisite intelligence to comprehend more literal/wooden versions. Anyone who says otherwise is likely not engaged in pastoral ministry. When you’re working with real flesh-and-blood people who love God and his word, but can’t understand the NASB and ESV as well as they can the NLT (or even NIV), to say to them that the NLT or NIV is not a good/reliable/trustworth, etc., translation is, in my own view, pastorally insensitive.
And what of very young children? Do we do away with things like Sally Lloyd-Jones’s The Jesus Storybook Bible? (which is completely paraphrastic)? The ESV philosophy (as far as I can tell) is for children to read/be exposed to the same Bible translation for life. That may be noble but I don’t think very practical. My two-and-a-half year old won’t sit still when I try to read to her from any Bible version. But she loves Lloyd-Jones’s “Bible.” (As does my 11 month-old, but that’s more for the taste of the cover, I think.) To be sure, the words themselves are important, but the Bible is always being contextualized so to say we should avoid more dynamically equivalent translations is, I think, to ignore that reality.
Some of the comments here have called Tim an ESV zealot and have implied some other not-so-nice things about him, suggesting that he’s attacking the NLT out of some devious, ulterior motive. Though we haven’t met before, I seriously doubt that’s what’s going on. Tim has his views, not all of us agree, but let’s be a bit more charitable. If you read other blog entries of his, you’ll see he’s a big fan of Bruce Waltke, who’s a TNIV guy! (And here I think many of us thought ESV and TNIV folk couldn’t get along!) We can appreciate and endorse one English Bible version over another out of deep and genuine conviction, disagree with one another, even engage in mutual critique. This shouldn’t lead to hostile words.
Tim is among those who extol the ESV as though it was the KJV - he has no idea whatever about translation issues - like the translators of the ESV he lets his personal theology govern the translation instead of letting basic principles of linguistics and translation lead the way.
BTW - I am certainly glad my sins are not merely covered. The blood of Jesus more than covers my sin, it washes them away!
Athan (41) - that blanket statement to describe Tim and all the translators of the ESV is both unfair and dare I say, malicious. I may be wrong, but I doubt that you know each of the translators who worked on the ESV. You may not like their translation philosophy nor the end result, but to suggest that they let their own theological views knowingly and purposely dictated their translation, and that they prioritized personal theology over “basic principles of linguistics and translation” (and what that means needs fleshing out) is a bold accusation that, I think, needs defending, or else retracting.
but to suggest that they let their own theological views knowingly and purposely dictated their translation,
I interviewed Dr. Packer on 2 Tim. 2:2 and he said that they “thought” it meant “men” the males.
Unless one reads Greek and Hebrew rather well, one is always at the mercy of the translators. The only issue is how well one recognizes this fact.
I deplore the statement of concern against the TNIV, written by the editors of the ESV. Supporters of the ESV should write in to CBMW and ask that it be removed. It is a shameful thing. If Dr. Packer has publicly recommended and endorsed the NLT, then why is his signature on the statement declaring the TNIV untrustworthy?
I`ve had some questions along these lines as well.
1) Inuit do not have sheep or lions. Inhabitants of South American jungles do not have the “snows of Mount Hermon.“ How does the Word then translate?
2) Languages change. For example, “thee and thou“ were intimate forms of address and were common language in 1611. Common usage changed and these forms became thought of as “holy language.“ Does this matter?
3) My usual form of English is not the language spoken in some other parts of Canada, in the USA, England, Australia etc. There are different grammars, pronunications and vocabularies. Lots of fun, good jokes, but who`s got the right English?
My conclusions are simple:
- God is sovereign, and His Word endures forever. He is greater than our differences in language, culture and times.
- Godly men and women pour their lives into translating the Bible - I praise God for them.
Amen.
There is one primary flaw in your original analogy. You’re assuming that the kidnappers speak the same language as we do. If, in fact, the ransom note is to symbolize the Scriptures, then the kidnappers would have to be speakers of a foreign language.
In that case, would you want a ransom note to be translated word-for-word (or close) from that foreign language into your own, or would you rather get a smoother, more natural reading of the kidnapper’s note in order to better understand what he MEANS?
P.S. I’m a bit shocked, to be honest, that you seem to be going the way of KJV-only people when you say:
“But is “covered” not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book?”
Actually, it’s not. It was a Hebrew word that was rendered “covered” a long, long time ago. More contemporary translations have merely rendered that word differently.
A simple study of any (ANY!) foreign language will inform you that direct one-word-for-one-word translations are impossible to do much of the time.
Tim, in re-reading your comment, there is one (other) thing that I think bears pointing out. You say, “What basis do we have for our faith if we cannot have confidence in the Bible?” but the basis of our faith is the saving work of Jesus, not whether a Greek or Hebrew word is translated more precisely in one English version than another. In anticipation of one rebuttal, namely, that the Bible testifies to the saving work of Jesus, I would simply say that the general trustworthiness of the original authors (in the original languages) is all that is sufficient. If English translations err here or there—which is inevitable, really—that doesn’t render the basis of our faith null and void.
Guys, we mustn’t lose sight that this is a far more complicated issue than we are making it out to be. That’s how come we have so many Godly scholars and pastors who take opposing views. So lets not over simplify it.
An important point is that all translation is interpretation. You have to decide what a particular word means in its context, and therefore the ESV is an interpretive translation too.
Translation involves compromise, that’s why we often put them on a spectrum of more literal to more readable. This is not the same as accuracy. A translation like the ESV strives to follow the structure and wording of the original as much as possible, but has to compromise at times for readability.
We so often try to make it a battle of words versus meaning, but isn’t that false? Of course we want to know what it means, but do we think the meaning is divorced from the words? Of course not. The meaning comes from the words and that is why it is so important that care is taken over translating, to find the best words fit for the task. That’s why it is good to be as literal as you can, but why when translators get to bits like kidneys, they translate them bond-servant or heart. (We would talk about our hearts as where our emotions come from etc, but at the time the Bible was written people associated that with the kidneys)
Isn’t it also true that there is great value in wrestling with God’s word, and taking time to understand what it really means. That is when I find I am most impacted by it, if the meaning is all to clear, then often we don’t stop and take it in. That is one reason why we want to read what the Bible says, and not just jump straight to the commentaries. There is a depth to the Bible, which can be lost if we just look at the basics and not in depth at the wording and the flow of thought.
So personally, I find the ESV readable, it isn’t beautifully flowing, but I find it makes a nice compromise with being as close to the original for serious study but still readable. I think the NIV does a great job too, and use it as my day to day Bible. I think the ESV is better for in depth study though, as you get closer to what the author said.
I also think that it makes sense for children and people with a less confident use of English to have Bibles that are easier to understand, but that an NIV should be enough for a teenager and above to understand.
Grace and Peace
Alex
PS: Finally a brief point on slaves. I spoke with one of the ESV translators who was arguing for the inclusion of bond-servant instead of slave as the translation for the Greek word which I don’t know. Not enough of them agreed, so it only got foot-noted. He wanted bond-servant as that made better sense of the original to the modern audience, given the connotations of slavery we have.
Jeff,
One quick thought on what you said here:
“Inuit do not have sheep or lions. Inhabitants of South American jungles do not have the snows of Mount Hermon. How does the Word then translate?”
99% of Americans and Canadians don’t know enough about sheep to understand the analogy either, yet teachers take the time to learn and farmers take the time to teach and so we all learn enough to understand exactly what Jesus meant.
Are Inuits and South American Jungle folk not capable of being taught as well?
I think that’s the reason I have a problem with the dynamic equilavent “translations”, the don’t give people enough credit, and, conversely, they play to our natural laziness, both on the teaching and the learning side of that coin.
I’ve started to critique the ESV. I wrote a article, Is the ESV “essentially literal” and why their philosophy really tends to neither produce the best word for word study nor the best understanding. The ESV exists in an uncomfortable middle layer where you lose quite a bit of the Greek yet gain very little from expert interpretation. I intend to follow up with several articles addressing where it is literal but misleading.
I’m not sure it is even reasonable to compare the ESV to The Message they are designed for entirely different functions. In terms of the NLT, the reading level is much lower and I could find passages the NLT handles much better than the ESV but its basically a tossup. The CEV on the other hand is a very well done bible. Again the reading level is lower, but Barclay Newman is a fine scholar and there are many places he does a substantially better job.
I think a fair comparison of dynamic vs. formal equivalence for this sort of thing would be the REB, which is a less literal translation that often does a much much better job in capturing meaning. This meaning is lost generally because shades of meaning are wiped out by the ESV translation philosophy.