We here in America, and in other English-speaking countries are blessed in that we have so many versions of the Bible to choose from for our studies. There is no other language in the world which has as many translations of the Bible available to it. Some believe that these are actually totally different versions of the Bible, but they are not. Rather, they are attempts by different groups of scholars, to come up with a perfect translation. There are still many thousands of languages in the world, for which there isn’t even one translation, let alone the variety we have.
There are probably two main reasons why we have so many translations of the Bible in English. The first is purely financial; there’s more money available to spend on Bible translations in the US, than in some other countries. Secondly, English has become the most widely spoken language in the world. So, even if people don’t speak it as their primary language, there are many who speak it as a secondary language. They may use a Bible in their native language for their primary study Bible, but will augment that with an English translation, to see what difference there is in the translation.
Translating the Bible is a challenging task, to say the least. Those who undertake this massive task need to not only be scholars in the Bible itself, but totally fluent in both the language they are translating from and the language they are translating too. It’s such an enormous task, that the Wycliff Bible Translators require a 20 year commitment from missionaries that go to work for them.
Problems with Translating the Bible
Translation of the Bible is one of the most demanding scholarly tasks there is. Part of the challenge comes from the value people put on the content of the Bible. Errors in translation can make a major difference in people’s lives, unlike translating other types of ancient texts, which may only be of interest to archeologists and anthropologists who are studying those ancient peoples.
We start with the problem that there really are no “original texts,” that have passed down to us from the writers of those books. Everything available to us is a copy; how good a copy it is can vary, depending on who made the copy and when they made it.
Consistency in the Texts
But there are other things which are unique about translating the Bible, as compared to other ancient texts. Primarily the number of ancient copies of the Bible or fragments of the Bible that exist. There are over 5,800 complete or fragments of the New Testament alone, just written in the Greek language. That doesn’t count the 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts that exist in other languages.
This may seem to be of benefit; but it’s not, as not all of those copies are the same. The people who copied the originals may have had no other qualification for the work than that they could write. This has led to errors and variations in those ancient copies of the New Testament. One can quickly grasp the complexity of this, by comparing the King James (KJV or Authorized translation) and the New International Version (NIV) of the New Testament. Some NIV versions will tell which verses are not in the manuscripts their translators worked from, while others simply leave those verses out, leaving a gap in the numbering of the verses.
It may seem to the casual observer that this doesn’t make much difference; but in some cases, it can change the meaning of the verse entirely. One good example of this is Romans 8:1. Only a few translations of the Bible contain the full verse, with many others cutting off the tail end.
- King James (KJV) – There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
- New King James (NKJV) – There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
- Amplified (AMP) – Therefore there is now no condemnation [no guilty verdict, no punishment] for those who are in Christ Jesus [who believe in Him as personal Lord and Savior].
- American Standard Version (ASV) – There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
- English Standard Version (ESV) – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
- New International Version (NIV) – Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
- Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) – There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
As you can see from the examples above, the various translations of the first part of the verse basically say the same thing, with the only differences being how the individual translator worded the verse. But those differences don’t really affect the meaning. However, the fact that the last half of the verse is left out of four out of seven of those translations, makes a huge difference. In those translations of the verse, one can do anything (including sin) and still not be condemned, because they are in Christ Jesus. However, when the second part of the verse is added, it becomes clear that the believer must not only be in Christ Jesus, but follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, if they wish to be without condemnation.
It would be natural to question how such a difference could exist in our Bibles. We find the answer to that question in the introduction to the New International Version of the Bible. The translators of that version state that they used a collection of older manuscripts than the translators of the King James Version did, believing that the older manuscripts would be more accurate.
The response that those who don’t like the New International Version of the Bible have for this is that the translators of the King James version of the Bible knew of these older manuscripts, but dismissed them, because they had come from repositories of Gnostic texts, making their accuracy suspect. Such are the arguments between the various scholars who have translated or support various translations of the scriptures.
Adding to the overall problem of differences in copies of the New Testament, some ancient manuscripts were found in collections that also contained texts by false religions, especially the Gnostics. It is possible that those who made those copies included small alterations to the scriptures, in order to make them more closely align with their beliefs. We don’t know if this happened or not, but the possibility does exist, making the accuracy of those copies suspect.
In contrast to these problems, there is very little variation to ancient copies of the Old Testament. That’s because the Jews created the office of the Scribes, who were tasked with making copies of the Old Testament scrolls (or books to our way of thinking). They were trained to be very exacting in their work, to the point where the same letters are found in the same place on the same page for every true copy made by the Scribes. If they made one mistake or got one drop of ink where it didn’t belong, they would throw out the page and start over.
Hebew Was an ‘Unpointed’ Text
While the ancient copies of the Old Testament are all the same, they are not easy to work from. Ancient Hebrew, like many other ancient languages, was written quite differently than we write today. They didn’t have punctuation back then and the letters of the words ran together, without spaces. This makes it extremely difficult to discern where words, phrases and sentences start and stop. The chapters and verses we use for reference in the Bible weren’t added in until 1225 AD at the earliest.
But there’s another problem with ancient Hebrew; that is, it was usually written without vowels. More modern texts will include vowels that have been added. These take the form of dots, either above or beside the consonant letters. Scholars reading ancient Hebew must therefore interpret the word correctly, usually by context, adding the vowels in, in their minds. Obviously, their understanding of what the text said would affect their interpretation and selection of the right words.
Difference in Language & Culture
No two languages are perfectly parallel, making translation easy. It is common for there to be more words for a concept in one language, than another. Which words are added depends on the culture the language was developed by and what their needs are. Inuktitut, the native language of the Eskimos, has 52 different words for “snow,” reflecting the various types of snow that they encounter. Since they live in a frozen world, that’s much more important to them, than someone living near the equator.
Some concepts don’t translate well from one language to another. Trying to explain the difference in all those types of snow to someone living in Israel would be impossible. They rarely have snow and then only at the higher elevations. It’s likely that some of the snow conditions the Eskimos have words for have never occurred in Israel.
In John 6:35, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.” We understand that in one context, because we eat bread in our society. Sandwiches are made of bread and bread is often served with other meals. In the time of Christ, bread was even more important than that, as they didn’t eat with utensils. Rather, they would scoop up the food with bread (something like a pita), out of a common dish. So, one could not eat if they didn’t have bread available. That made it even more essential than it is to us.
But what about a society which doesn’t eat bread? The Chinese don’t eat bread. Translating that verse as we understand it would provide a mystery to Chinese believers. Were they to interpret that through their cultural context, they would come to the conclusion that the verse is telling them that Jesus is useless. To prevent this, Chinese Bibles quote this as Jesus saying, “I am the rice of life.” It’s not accurate as far as the semantics is concerned; but correct as far as their understanding of the value of Jesus. Rice is their most basic sustenance, without which no food is eaten. If you ever watch Chinese people eat, they take food from the main dish and scoop it into their own bowl of rice, so that they can then eat the rice and other food together.
Not all Translations are Translations
We use both the words “translation” and “interpretation” rather loosely and as if they were synonymous. But in the world of translating the Bible, they are quite different, with different meanings. Not all translations of the Bible are truly translations; some are more correctly called by other names. When using a particular version of the Bible, it is helpful to know which of these terms applies, so that we can have an understanding of just how accurate the version is, when compared to the original text.
We must recognize that the individual scholar’s theological understanding is going to come into the translation process. That’s almost impossible to avoid. Any translator is giving you their best understanding of what a verse means. But their understanding is affected by their knowledge. So, if they are of one particular theological slant, that will end up coming through in their translation at some point.
One example of this is the word “prophet” in the New Testament. To some the word “prophet” refers to someone who is moved upon by the Holy Spirit to act as the mouthpiece of God, speaking for Him. But the Amplified version of the Bible gives the definition of this word to be “inspired teachers and preachers.” From this, it appears that they don’t believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through people. That brings into question the source and inspiration of the books of Prophecy, as well as any prophecy that might take place in churches today.
Transliteration
A transliteration is a word-for-word translation of the original text, without making any adjustments for grammar, syntax or words that might not be used in the original language, but are used in the new language. An interlinear Bible is a transliteration; there’s also an Aramaic transliteration available. Of all versions, these are the hardest to use, because the reader must figure out for themselves how it would be said in their language.
A good example of words which might be missing when translating from one language to another exists between English and the romance languages, such as Spanish. In Spanish, all nouns are preceded by an article; either “el” which is masculine or “la” which is feminine. We don’t use masculine or feminine articles in English, but only the single article “the.”
Translation
A translation takes the transliteration and adjusts it to match the language that the scripture is being translated to. This can include changing word order and adding articles and other small words into the text. Some translations are naturally more accurate than others, due to the understanding of the translator and the accuracy of their word choices. It is also possible that a translator might come up with a different meaning for the verse, because of the word order they choose.
By and large, translations are the best sources for serious Bible study, as they give the most accurate understanding of what was originally written, in an understandable way. Even so, translations will vary, as we saw above in the discussion of Romans 8:1. Choosing a translation wisely or using multiple translations for serious study is recommended.
Interpretation
An interpretation differs from a translation in that the person creating it is more concerned with providing the meaning of the verse, than an exact word-for-word translation. The verse about Jesus being the rice of life in Chinese Bibles, is a perfect example of an interpretation. In some cases, interpretations can be more accurate than translations, at least in getting the original meaning of the phrase or sentence across. But there is always a danger that the interpreter will change the verse to the point where God’s original intent can become lost.
The NIV version of the Bible is one of the most widely read interpretations of the Bible. Some people, and even entire denominations, don’t like it for this reason, saying that the interpreters of the NIV have seriously undermined the veracity of scripture, by their word choices. It is an easy version for new believers to read, but they should eventually move on to a more serious translation of the Bible.
Paraphrase
Of all versions, a paraphrase is the least accurate, in how closely it holds to the original text. However, paraphrases are the easiest to read and understand. For this reason, they are excellent for new believers who are looking to gain an overall understanding of the Bible. At the same time, they are not good for detailed study.
The process of paraphrasing can be described as reading something and then saying it in your own words. This clearly indicates that the person doing the work is going to get more of their own understanding into the finished product, than any of the other methods. Some understanding will be lost through this process; and it is easy to insert mistaken understanding into the text.
Some paraphrases of the Bible are so far from the original text, that it is hard to align verses, saying that they are even speaking about the same subject. If it were not for the chapter and verse system used to break down the Bible for study purposes, it would be impossible to follow what passage the person paraphrasing was working from.
Other Versions
There are a few versions of the Bible, which stand in a category by themselves. These translations have been created with the idea of providing the serious Bible student with a more complete understanding of the text. The Amplified version of the Bible does this by adding definitions, in brackets, within the text. Young’s literal translation is another, which doesn’t add in the definitions, but tries to give the most literal translation of what was originally said, without taking culture or time into account.
Has the Bible Changed?
With so many translations, interpretations and paraphrases of the Bible available in English, it is easy for some people to say that the Bible has been changed through the years. One point of view, which says that the King James version of the Bible is the only accurate and valid translation, says that there are more than 30,000 changes that have been made to the Bible. These changes are mostly word choices, rather than changes in meaning.
Each version of the Bible has been attacked by groups who do not agree with that particular translation or interpretation of scripture. Perhaps the most famous of these has been the NIV. While one of the most popular versions of the Bible in existence today, the translators of the NIV made some decisions in their word choices, which others see as heresy. Most particularly, they use the term “young girl” to describe Mary, rather than “virgin.” In the original language, the word used can be translated either way, as to say one was a young girl was also to say they were a virgin. However, the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin is a major point of Christian doctrine, which some believe the NIV version of the Bible undermines.
Regardless of what version of the Bible one chooses to use, there will be others who disagree, citing problems with that translation. These problems are the problems of translation, as discussed above. They will exist, as long as we are preaching and studying from translations of the Bible, rather than from the original text, in the original language.
The doctrinal point is “The Bible is without error, in its original form (language).” Many people quote the first part of this, without the second. But the truth is, the Bible can be without error, while our translations can contain things that one group of believers or another considers to be in error. That’s why it is important to use several different versions of the Bible for serious study, comparing how verses are translated. A single verse in one translation may spark one avenue of understanding, while another translation opens the door to gain understanding in another area entirely.
There is nothing wrong with gaining multiple understanding from a single verse. Many verses in the Bible can be applied to different areas of life, giving us different understandings. This doesn’t mean that one is right and another wrong. Rather, it just shows the depth of God’s understanding, being able to produce a test which can speak to so many different things at the same time.
It should be noted that there are other religious books which people try to equate with the Bible or say are part of the Bible. The Book of Mormon is one such example. However, the canon of scripture was decided in 325 AD, at the First Eccumenical Counsel and that cannot be changed. Not only that, but the Bible itself says that it can’t be added to, right at the end of Revelations.
Which Translation is the Most Accurate?
If you ask the question, which translation or version of the Bible is the most accurate, you’ll receive a wealth of answers, not all of them the same. Each scholar has their own favorite version, with their own reasons for saying it is the most accurate. All of them are right in what they are saying about their translation, all at the same time. The same can’t be said about what they say against other translations.
The King James translation is the oldest translation of the Bible into English that is still in use today. It is even older than the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church, although the Catholics have a translation that is older still, called the Douay Rheims Bible, which was first published in 1582. But this translation is no longer in use today, other than by serious Catholic scholars, as it is harder for the average person to understand than the King James version is.
Catholics do not accept the King James version of the Bible, because it was commissioned by King James of England, when he broke away from the Catholic church. Overseen by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the work took advantage of earlier translations, borrowing much from them. Much of it was copied directly from the Tyndale Translation, the work of William Tyndale, a Reformer, 50 years earlier.
Most Protestant (every Christian but Catholics) scholars and Bible school professors accept the King James Bible as being the most accurate translation. It is often the standard to which other versions are compared. The New King James translation was an attempt to modernize the language of the King James, to make it more understandable to people today, without changing the meaning. It was largely successful in this effort.
There are a couple of things that exist in the King James translation, and subsequently in the New King James, which we don’t find in later translations; but which help in understanding the test. First, the words “Lord,” “Father,” “Son,” and “He/Him,” as well as other words referring to members of the Godhead, are capitalized to demonstrate that they are referring to God. This is useful, as some of the same words are used in reference to false gods. The Hebrew word “Elohim” for example, is literally translated as “Lord.” As such, it can refer to any of the three members of the Trinity, as well as referring to the idols that the people of Canaan worshiped. We can quickly differentiate between the two, by whether the word is capitalized or not. This can be especially useful in verses which refer to two distinct persons by the title “him,” one being God and the other a man.
Another thing that the King James and New King James does to help the serious student of the Bible is to italicize words that have been added into the original text. All translations of the Bible need to do this, in the process of going from transliteration to translation. Yet not all show us, the readers and students of the Bible, which words have been added. This allows serious students of the Word of God to experiment with substituting other appropriate words, in place of those italicized, to see if they can gain further understanding from the verse.