Question: In my childhood, I was raised Catholic, then in the Episcopal church. We used the King James version. As so many young adults do, I strayed away from the church for a while. Now, later in life, my wife and I attend a Christian church, that teaches out of the NIV translation. I do enjoy that it’s format is easier to read, especially in the Old Testament.
I have been told by many that the NIV is a “thought for thought” translation, and should not be used. The reasoning is found in Revelations 22, verses 18-20. The argument is that the NIV does omit, change and add to the scriptures. An example would be John 8, verses 1-12. The footnote in my NIV Bible says that earlier manuscripts do not include those verses. Interesting, that my NKJV does include these passages, with no footnotes.
I realize that picking a Bible to use is a personal decision, but an easily read and understood version is more pleasurable to read. I have found that the NKJV that I also have still requires more effort to understand what I am being told. I looked through a New American Standard version and it seemed to be a little easier of a read.
So, my question is, should we only be using a literal word for word translation (KJV, NKJV, or NASB), to stay in God’s favor? I appreciate your thoughts.
Answer: I don’t believe any of the translations you have mentioned keep us more or less in God’s favor. They are each reliable translations. There are different views on which manuscript tradition gives us the closest to the original writings of Scripture. We don’t have the original book of Genesis, or Matthew, or 1 Corinthians, but rather copies of all these books in our Bible, in fact, generations of copies done by scribes to preserve them. And they aren’t all in one tome or Bible. We have discovered these manuscripts in various parts of the world, usually kept in churches.
How Translations Translate
A Comparison Between Some of the Major Translations
Excerpts from the various introductions to each version describing how they translate:
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
“The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees. The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various groups of people. The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a “thought-for-thought” translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.”
NEW KING JAMES VERSION
“Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translation applies the most recent research in archaeology, linguistics, and textual studies. Where new translation has been necessary in the New King James Version, the most complete representation of the original has been rendered by considering the history of usage and etymology of words in their contexts. This principle of complete equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form. Dynamic equivalence, a recent procedure in Bible translation, commonly results in paraphrasing where a more literal rendering is needed to reflect a specific and vital sense.” (NKJV)
NEW LIVING TRANSLATION
“The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as accurately as possible to the modern reader. The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text.” (NLT)
Examples of how each version translates particular passages:
Genesis 3:16
The Hebrew for this verse literally reads, “I will greatly multiply your pain and childbearing.” As many commentators have noted, increased numbers in childbearing could not be viewed as a punishment for Eve’s transgression. God is not here saying that she will have more children than she would have had she not sinned. The phrase is understood as meaning “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing.” Thus, the “literal” translation can actually be misleading in English and needs to be rendered more as to the intent of this particular way of communicating.
Here is how the three versions translate this passage:
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing….” (NIV)
To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception….” (NKJV)
Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy….” (NLT)
In this case, only the NIV and the NLT get it right for the English language. The NKJV gives a misleading translation in English because of its commitment to “complete equivalence.”
Isaiah 7:14
There is debate in this passage as to whether the word almah should be translated “virgin” or “young woman.” The meaning of this prophecy in its context to King Ahaz is that when Isaiah’s son is born and before he gets very old, the enemies Ahaz is facing will be removed. Matthew applies it to Jesus and his birth through his understanding that what happens to a type of Messiah, in this case the prophet Isaiah and his son, will be fulfilled in a heightened way by Messiah. Isaiah’s wife was not a virgin and his son was not virgin-born. Jesus’ mother, however, was a virgin and his birth was miraculous.
Here is how the three versions translate this passage:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (NKJV)
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’). (NLT)
Each of the translations yields to the pressure to translate almah as “virgin” to keep in harmony with Matthew. This is not an accurate translation in the context, but is an example of the difficulty for translators when readers’ understanding is considered over correct translation. The NLT actually adds a phrase after “Immanuel” to give the meaning of it in the text rather than in a footnote. This is not in the Hebrew but is a further aid to the reader for understanding the text.
Mark 16:9-20
Here is how the notes in each translation introduce this passage:
((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)) (NIV)
Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them. (NKJV)
[Shorter Ending of Mark]
Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen.
[Longer Ending of Mark] (NLT)
This reflects the different philosophies about the original text of Scripture. The New King James translators subscribe to the view that the “Majority Text” is the most reliable text. This is not actually one text but a conglomeration of texts that all evidence the same original source from which they were copied. Is this source the most accurate representation of the original manuscripts Paul or Matthew or Peter wrote? They would argue that it is.
The translators of the NIV and the NLT on the other hand subscribe to the view that the most accurate representation of the original manuscripts must be deciphered from all the textual families from which manuscript copies have come. They argue that even though there are more of the manuscript copies that the NKJV resort to (hence, it is called the Majority Text), this family of manuscripts comes from only one part of the world, Byzantium or modern-day Turkey. This group of translators values manuscript copies from Egypt, Israel, and other areas where manuscripts have been found. The Sinaiticus, as might be imagined, is from Egypt, and the Vaticanus is also, but gets its name because it is owned by the Vatican. These manuscripts happen to be much older than the Majority texts, also, and this gives these scholars another reason for valuing them over the Majority Text. They are closer to the original in time.
The NLT shows that there are other manuscripts that include other endings for Mark and this short ending is included in the NLT. There are only a few passages in our New Testaments where such a big section of what the King James included in its translation is in question. John 8, the story of the woman taken in adultery, is another. And 1 John 5:7 (in the King James Version it reads, “For there are three that testify in heaven – the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And we have three witnesses on earth.”). No modern translations include 1 John 5:7 as it is in the King James version. Even modern versions of the King James Version (like the New King James Version) do not include it because it has no valid manuscript evidence.
It is hard to make absolutely correct decisions on these passages. The evidence can be interpreted either for or against their inclusion in our Scriptures.
Ephesians 4:8
Here is how the three versions translate this passage:
This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” (NIV)
Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.” (NKJV)
That is why the Scriptures say, “When he ascended to the heights, he led a crowd of captives and gave gifts to his people.” (NLT)
The Greek reads, “Wherefore it/he says, ‘Rising he took captive captivity and gave gifts to men.’” Bauer’s lexicon suggests that “captivity” is being used figuratively here of the abstract for the concrete, that is, the abstract “captivity” stands in for the concrete “prisoners of war.” This is why the NIV and NLT translate “captives” instead of “captivity,” in essence translating the figure of speech. The NKJV is more literal, but it is questionable if the literal is the intended meaning.
The way Paul translates this reference to Psalm 68:18 is very instructive for the translation process and for Scripture translation theory. In the NIV Psalm 68:18 reads, “When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men….” But Paul alters the verse to read “he gave gifts to men.” One explanation for why he does this is that he is translating the intent and thought of the entire psalm. In Psalm 68:35 we read, “You are awesome, O God, in your sanctuary; the God of Israel gives power and strength to his people. Praise be to God!” Here the concept of the conquering God giving gifts out of the bounty of what has been captured is expressed very clearly. It is likely that Paul is picking up this thought as part of the psalmist’s intended meaning for the whole of his psalm. In that case, Paul is translating thought for thought, rather than word for word. The other possibility is that Paul was aware of a version of Psalm 68 that read different from the versions we have (a targumic rendering of this passage has the verb ‘to give’ rather than ‘to take’ and the Peshitta used this translation).
Philemon 5
The Greek behind this verse reads, “hearing of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints.” The concept of faith for all the saints seems very awkward. But this is meant most likely as chiasmus, where love is connected to the saints and faith is meant to be connected to the Lord Jesus.
Here is how the three versions translate this passage:
I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints. (NIV)
…hearing of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints. (NKJV)
I keep hearing about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all of God’s people. (NLT)
Again, only the NIV and the NLT, it seems, give the sense in English correctly, it may be said, because in English we do not commonly employ this kind of chiasmus. It would be likely if left untranslated to lead some to believe that we are to have faith toward all the saints. You could undoubtedly come up with some way of construing this wording that fits with Scripture, but it is unnecessary to do so given the understanding of Paul’s literary construction here.
Conclusions
There is nothing wrong with the “thought for thought” kind of translation. It is not guaranteed in and of itself to give the best translation in every case, but it is in principle a proper way of representing the original language in English (as well, most likely, in other languages). The “literal” translation or “complete equivalence” can be somewhat misleading at times. One would have to study a commentary in order to correctly get the sense or intended meaning of the passage because the “literal” translation does not give it.
Every translation is an interpretation of the text. Each translation decision one makes is an interpretation of the meaning of the author and how to convey that meaning. There are various translations that have been done by competent teams of translators and they are quite trustworthy, but like any commentary will have slightly different interpretations of some passages. This aids us by giving us options to consider as to the meaning of the text. No translation of this kind should be characterized as damaging to the faith or as inferior in quality. They are honest attempts at rendering the meaning of the sacred text.
We have not considered here what are commonly called paraphrases, like the Living Bible or The Message. They are often done by one translator and are not intended to be exact translations, but rather are intepretations of, in some cases, an English translation of Scripture rather than the original text (Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament). Paraphrases are like sermons on the text that try to make the Scriptures more intelligible to us and can thus be very beneficial. But they are not translations and so should not be resorted to as authoritative interpretations.
Ask the Pastors 