Why Bible Translations Differ

A hotly debated issue among evangelicals is which English translation most closely reflects the original manuscripts of the Bible.* Christians are divided over this issue, with some going so far as to claim that their version is the only true and faithful translation of the original manuscripts. Every other translation is a heresy. Should we, as Christians, be concerned about this?

As students of the Word, knowing the translation issues regarding the English Bible is vital for developing one's faith and growing in the knowledge of Scripture. While there are a variety of reasons why English Bible translations differ from one another. For the scope of this article, I shall focus on three issues facing translation practices: (1) Exegetical Decision Making, (2) Translation Theory, and (3) Text-Based Decision Making. I shall illustrate each point in my article as doing so is more practical. 

1. Exegetical Decision Making – "the decision relating to the interpretation (and thus translation)"[1]

An example of exegetical decision making is Deuteronomy 32:8, "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God."(ESV)

The English Standard Version or ESV uses the Dead Sea Scroll rendering of בניאֵל (sons of God)[2] instead of the Masoretic text בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (sons of Israel).[3] The Dead Sea Scroll translation "sons of God" also follows closely with the Septuagint's Greek translation "angels of God."[4] In other translations the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), and New American Standard Bible (NASB) subscribe to the Masoretic rendering "sons of Israel." A possible reason why these English translations choose "sons of Israel" over the "sons of God" is because of the variation between the Masoretic text and the secondary manuscripts of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic text is considered the primary text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Fuhr and Kostenberger explain, "where there's a discrepancy, translators follow the Masoretic text over the Septuagint." [5] Another implication for the "sons of Israel" is based on a traditional reading that Jacob had "seventy male descendants when he went down to Egypt and that there are, at least proverbially, seventy nations."[6] Thus, providing the basis for this translation.

Proponents in favor of "sons of God" base their reasoning on the Scriptural descriptions of God surrounded by a council of lesser divine beings, "beney elohim" who were subordinate to him at one time (Psalm 86:8, 87:6–7). The "sons of God" adhere to the Septuagint's translations in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Hebrews 2:7.[7] Both sides have valid claims, but with the Dead Sea Scrolls being older than the Masoretic text, this does present a challenge to the current rendering. Moreover, it is implied that the Masoretic text used "sons of Israel" because of theological controversy surrounding the idea of God ruling with a divine council.

Subsequently, Deuteronomy 32:8 also overlaps with text-based decision making due to the textual differences between the primary and secondary manuscripts. To interpret verse eight based on "sons of Israel" significantly changes the passage's meaning. If we were to interpret the text based on "sons of Israel" you would come to the consensus that God divided the world's nations according to the number of Israel's sons. The context of verse eight also supports an interpretation that Moses refers specifically to Israel, not celestial beings. However, if you were to use "sons of God" or "angels," that would render the interpretation of the passage to mean that God divided the nations according to the number of his divine council members and not according to Israel's sons. The discrepancy between the texts is important, but it does not impact the message of God's salvific plan in the broader sense. So, while there remains a dispute on this passage, it is best to stay aware of the reasoning for both interpretations and leave the meaning open-ended. 

2. Translation Theory – "the degree to which a translation embraces equivalence in any given part may affect the wording of its English-language product"[8]

A secondary concern facing Bible translation is translation theory. Translation theory deals with the fact that when translating between languages, a word-for-word approach is not always possible because of the differences between languages. This results in translations using varying degrees of dynamic equivalence and thought-for-though to capture the accuracy of the original language.[9]

An instance of this can be found in Song of Songs 8:6, "It burns like a blazing fire, like a mighty flame."(NIV) The NLT translates it as "Love flashes like, the brightest kind of flame." These two Bible translations follow a thought-for-thought or dynamic equivalence in their renderings. Meanwhile, the NASB and ESV take a literal approach or word-for-word translation: "Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord."

For those who favor or oppose the two translation methodologies, it would be good to demonstrate the passage in its original text to show the difficulty translators face. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which is the most reliable reconstruction of the Hebrew Old Testament, writes the passage as follows:

שִׂימֵ֨נִיכַֽחוֹתָ֜םעַל־לִבֶּ֗ךָכַּֽחוֹתָם֙עַל־זְרוֹעֶ֔ךָכִּֽי־עַזָּ֤הכַמָּ֨וֶת֙אַהֲבָ֔הקָשָׁ֥הכִשְׁא֖וֹלקִנְאָ֑הרְשָׁפֶ֕יהָרִשְׁפֵּ֕יאֵ֖שׁשַׁלְהֶ֥בֶ

תְיָֽה

Every Bible translation uses a variation of both literal and dynamic equivalence methodologies. Their usage is more of a sliding scale than a strict adherence to one type of translation practice. A strict approach to either word-for-word or thought-for-thought translation is simply not reasonable, as it would be impossible to read.

Next, verse six also displays issues with text-based decision making. The Hebrew word שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה contains in its ending syllable יָה (yah). Yah is the short form of God's name Yahweh,[10] thus the translation "flame of the Lord." In some English Bible translations, they will mention the alternative translations in their footnotes. For instance, the NIV references "the very flame of the Lord" in their footnotes. Critics against the interpretation with יָה argue the ending has "virtually lost all theological significance, and it simply functions adjectively for "mighty" or the like."[11] 

3. Text-Based Decision Making - the decision relating to the "textual issues behind a translation"[12]

The third issue involving Bible translation is text-based decision making. In Galatians 4:28 it reads, "Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise" (ESV). In the Greek manuscript p46 it reads "you are," and Codex Sinaiticus says, "we are."[13] The concerns involving this text are related to the Greek singular "you" and the plural word "we." It's possible the scribe made a mistake in translation or copying. However, regardless of each translation, the "we" or "you" does not impact the meaning of the text.[14] The KJV interprets Galatians 4:28 as "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." 

The Bible translations of NIV, NLT NASB, and ESV possibly chose "you are" based on the context since it was comparing a believer to Isaac, who is a child of promise. Though, in the context, it could also be understood as "we are" since the verse is referring to Christians as "children of promise," instead of "child of promise." Or perhaps in the other Greek manuscripts, more copies of "you are" were used than "we are." 

Conclusion

In observing the differences among multiple Bible Translations, it is apparent that the translation practices employed by translators were for the accuracy and meaning of the text. Though it is ironic, Fuhr and Kostenberger suggest "that the best safeguard for the preservation of the Bible rests in the fact that textual variants exist among biblical manuscripts and that through the science of textual criticism we have the means and the opportunity to engage in fair-minded analysis of the text." [15] Therefore, the next time you open the Bible, whether it be the NIV, the NLT, or ESV, you now have an idea of the process behind an English Bible translation.

---

* This article is an adaption of a class discussion post on “Bible Translation and the Expositor” at Liberty University.

Footnotes:

[1] Richard Alan Fuhr Jr. and Andreas J. Kostenberger. Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology (Brentwood: B&H Academic, 2016), 49.

[2] Today's Parallel Bible: New International Version, New American Standard Version, Updated Edition, King James Version, New Living Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), 578.

[3] Today's Parallel Bible, 578.

[4] Today's Parallel Bible, 475.

[5] Richard Alan Fuhr Jr. and Andreas J. Kostenberger. Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology (Brentwood: B&H Academic, 2016), 65.

[6] Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, The Five Book of Moses (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2019), 729.

[7] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, editors, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: An Encyclopedic Exploration of the Images, Symbols, Motifs, Metaphors, Figures of Speech and Literary Patterns of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 52.

[8] Fuhr and Kostenberger, Inductive Bible Study, 57.

[9] Fuhr and Kostenberger, Inductive Bible Study, 56.

[10] Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, The Expositors Bible Commentary with the New International Version: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 1239.

[11] Duane Garrett and Paul R. House, Song of Songs/Lamentations, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 255.

[12] Fuhr and Kostenberger, Inductive Bible Study, 61.

[13] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1990), 198.

[14] Timothy Paul Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (Downer Grove: IVP Books, 2007), 43. 

[15] Fuhr and Kostenberger, Inductive Bible Study, 62-63.

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary. The Five Book of Moses. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2019. 

Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002. 

Fuhr, Richard Alan Jr., and Andreas J. Kostenberger. Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology. Brentwood: B&H Academic, 2016. 

Gaebelein, Frank E., editor. The Expositors Bible Commentary with the New International Version: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Garrett, Duane and Paul R. House. Song of Songs/Lamentations. Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. 

Jones, Timothy Paul. Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Downer Grove: IVP Books, 2007.

Kohlenberger, John R. III. The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979. 

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1990. 

Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, editors. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: An Encyclopedic Exploration of the Images, Symbols, Motifs, Metaphors, Figures of Speech and Literary Patterns of the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998. 

Today's Parallel Bible: New International Version, New American Standard Version, Updated Edition, King James Version, New Living Translation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973.

---

Bao Vang is a wife and mom of two amazing daughters. When Bao's not serving her local church, she likes to write and spend time with her family. Bao received her MA in Theological Studies from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and is currently pursuing a PhD in Bible Exposition at John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University. Bao is also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Society of Biblical Literature. You can find her research at https://liberty.academia.edu/baobvang.