Bible Translations: Self-Growth with the Word of the Bible

"The Bible is a fascinating book that continues to have relevance in a world that is constantly changing, even though it was written millennia ago." (Wegner 13). The Bible is a very popular book, and has various uses. It is most commonly used as a religious text in many major religions. It is also used as a historical reference. In 1456 it became the first printed book, and today is the most printed book. When the Bible was originally compiled it contained letters written by various authors. Somewhere through the millenia, the Bible went from the original letters that made up the first Bible to the various versions that we see in bookstores today. Many people wonder, "which version is best used in studying the Bible?" In studying the Bible, the usage of multiple versions is the most effective way to grasp the full meaning of the passage that is being studied.

The Bible was not originally written in English, but in Hebrew and Greek (and a little bit in Aramaic), therefore if someone wanted to make a Bible in English, they would have to translate it from the original languages into English (Arnold 29). The problem is that a line of Hebrew or Greek translated directly into English makes no sense because the way that sentences are structured in those languages is different than in English. Thus, the person who wants to translate a Bible into English also has to interpret what he is writing (Arnold 31). There are two ways to do this: dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence interpretations. Dynamic equivalence is a thought-for-thought translation and formal equivalence is a word-for-word translation (Klein 129). Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of a dynamic equivalence translation is that it is very readable so it easily used for private reading and personal studies, but a disadvantage is that it doesn't follow the original Greek and Hebrew Bible exactly.

An advantage of a formal equivalence translation is that it follows the original texts quite closely so it is easily used for public readings and for in-depth studies, but a disadvantage is that it is not as readable (Arnold 36). There are some translations that try to balance both formal and dynamic equivalence which is very useful for private reading and also for simple studies and public readings, such as in sermons. The downfall ofsuch a translation is actually it's strength: it is a middle ground, so it is not as useful for in-depth studies as a formal equivalent translation and does not have the readability of dynamic equivalence (Wegner 339). Since there are so many translations in print, there are a lot of examples of dynamic and formal equivalence.

One example of a dynamic equivalent translation is the Today's English Version, which uses common English in place of archaic words. In contrast, an example of a formal equivalent translation is the King James Version, which is written in the old English style and is quite difficult to read, but follows the original manuscripts quite closely (Arnold 36). Other examples of dynamic equivalent translations are: The Revised English Bible, Living Bible, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, and The Message. Also, other examples of formal equivalent translations are: New King James, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, and New American Standard Bible. Examples of versions that use both include the New International Version, Today's New International Version, and Holman Christian Standard Bible (Arnold 30).

Some of the most well known Bible translations are formal equivalent translations. Formal equivalent is a word-for-word translation that the translator may use to try to make his text follow the original word for word (Arnold 35). It is easily recognized in the King James Version Bible, and other like translations .In Paul D. Wegner's book, The Journey From Texts to Translations, S.L. Greenslade stated that the King James Version was so complete that "its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words of the King James Version" (Wegner 313). This shows that the text followed the original so well that the people thought it was actually the words of God Himself.

Formal equivalent translations are best used for in-depth biblical studies because of the closeness to the original texts makes it easier to look at the other meanings of certain words in the original languages, to help understand certain passages. Formal equivalent is also well used in preparation of sermons for this reason (Arnold 36). There are some big flaws in the formal equivalent versions, though. One big flaw is that when you try to translate word for word, you lose readability. This is why it would not be recommended to use a formal equivalent translation in private Bible reading.

Dynamic equivalent translations are quite popular, especially in young people, because they are easy to read and therefore easy to understand. Dynamic equivalent translations try to interpret the original texts thought-for-thought, which means that they translate a line of the original language, then write what that means in modern English. When doing this, the translator does not try to write word for word what is in the original texts, but the basic ideas behind the passage being translated (Arnold 36). One well known dynamic equivalent translation is the Living Bible, which was written for children, and is quite easy to read (Arnold 30).

Dynamic equivalent translations are best used for private reading because it is so easy to read and understand. Dynamic equivalent translations are also well used for simple Bible studies, because of it's readability (Arnold 35). "Another advantage of using dynamic versions is that they can shake you out of familiarity with the text and allow it to speak to you in a fresh and challenging way" (Arnold 36). There are also flaws in dynamic equivalent translations, though. One such flaw is that it is not a word-for-word translation and is consequently not good for any in-depth Biblical studies or in preparing for a sermon (Arnold 36).

There are some translations that try to find a balance between both dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. One such translation is the New International Version, which is one of the most popular translations in print today (Arnold 30). These translations try to make a better Bible by balancing readability and exactness. Such translations are best used in public readings because they are close the Bibles of everyone present. These balancing translations are quite good all around, but do have a few downfalls. One such downfall is that they are the middle ground between dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. This is a downfall because while they are middle ground, they are not as strong in either exactness or readability. For this reason, they should not be used in any very in-depth Bible studies, because they do not follow the original texts exactly. They are also not as useful in private reading because, at times, they are not easy to follow (Arnold 36).

Since there are so many translations and there is no one type of translation that is flawless, one might ask "which should be used for everything?" The answer is not which one should be used, but which ones should be used. In order to get a good insight on a passage of scripture, the reader should try to use one of each type of translation. This allows the reader to get a better understanding of what he or she is reading, because he or she can see it in an easy to read translation, in a translation that follows the original closely, and in a translation that is a little of both. For example, the verse John 3:16, one can see how more than one translation can be helpful. In the New International version of the Bible, John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (NIV 1433). In the King James Version of the Bible, John 3:16 states, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (KJV 659). Also, in the Message Bible, it states, "This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life" (Message 1929). By having multiple versions, the reader can better understand a passage or verse, because he or she can get the readability and exactness that he or she needs. The reader can defeat the flaws of each individual translation with a different translation. According to Clinton E. Arnold in his article entitled "It's All Greek to Me," he states "It is okay, and actually advisable to have more than one Bible" (Arnold 36).

Using more than one version together is the best way to study the Bible. This is because the formal equivalent translations are very accurate, but not very easily understood. In contrast, the dynamic equivalent translations are easily understood, but not very accurate. For this reason using two Bibles, one of formal equivalence and one of dynamic equivalence, is the most useful style in studying. This helps keep in the reader's mind how the original texts read and allows the reader to understand the meaning of the text. The only thing left for the reader to find is which translations to use.

SOURCES:

Arnold, Clinton E. "It's All Greek to Me." Discipleship Journal. 132 (2002): 29-36.

The Holy Bible, King James Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Habbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993.

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message Remix. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2003.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999.