Isn’t the Word of God the Word of God no matter what translation you use?  Won’t God get the point across no matter what translation we use? Aren’t the differences in the various translations just minor & don’t really affect doctrine?

We have heard this reasoning before & there is different answers depending on who you ask.  Some people will agree with the first paragraph’s rhetorical questions whereas other people might claim there is only one authorized version or translation of the Bible (often the KJV). Obviously there are many opinions in between.

But when it comes to the Bible the most important aspect for the Christian isn’t merely to have the closest “literal” translation but to have a translation that conveys the original intent of any given text.  This is a difficult job for any translation to fulfill.

I will not bog the reader down with going on & on about technical terminology, but in biblical translations there is typically two methodologies;

• Formal Equivalence – rendering a literal or word for word translation from the source text
• Dynamic Equivalence – rendering an originally intended translation, even supplying words not in the original so as to convey that intent.

Now, these methodologies often overlap & cannot be followed purely.  For instance, even in some of the most stringent Formal Equivalent translations, the translators will supply words not actually in the original text.  These words are typically noted by italicization & can be anything from a definite article (such as the words “a” or “the”) to more drastic additions.

So, as we approach any translation we should be aware of the methodology of translation so that we can judge how much stock we want to put into each word.

FORMAL EQUIVALENCE

It would seem like the answer is just to find the most strictly Formal Equivalence translation we can find.  There certainly are some out there, such as what is called an “interlinear” that will allow you not only to read the Bible as close as possible word for word but even in the original word order.  But these translations are often difficult to read because just like any language, grammatical structure is different from language to language.  For example, in one language a subject may be stated first; “The dog ran across the street” where as in another language the preposition may come first “Across the street the dog ran”.  It can get more complex than that. 

Another problem with Formal Equivalence is that literal words don’t always convey the original intent because of typical lingual usage such as idioms, hyperbole, & other things.  For instance, when the original author uses a phrase like “all the world” he may really only be referring to a known region or the known world at that time & did not intend to convey every single individual parsec of land on the planet.

Lastly, Formal Equivalence is not a fail-safe as there can often be multiple word choices for translation.  How often have you heard a sermon where the preacher says something like, “In the original Greek this word means…” and then he goes on to supply an English word.  My question is then why does it use a different English word in the translation?  Why not give us a more accurate translation?  If the preacher can say the word then someone should be able to write it.  The point is, even though a preacher may say the word he is using “more accurately conveys” the original intent, it is only his opinion.  Usually, the supplied English word in the text already conveys what the preacher’s supplied word conveys but his supplied word helps to solidify the already translated word.  Such may be the case for example if a word is translated “over” it might also be translated as “above, on, top” or a manner of other ways, often depending on several factors including the tense of the text.  These types of translation differences are typically harmless to doctrine but even so it is best to consult multiple translations, lexicons, & original language sources if there is ever dramatic impact.

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE

As with Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence has its pros & cons.  The first major drawback is that it is not even attempting to be a word for word translation but really is just an editor’s interpretation of the text.  If the editor’s interpretation is incorrect so shall the translation, but if the interpretation is correct then it may help the reader understand the original intent of the author.  The question is, how do we determine if the editor’s interpretation is correct?

This requires a bit of work on our part.  When studying the Bible, it cannot be read like any other book.  A true Bible study considers among other things, these four things:

1. Context
2. Audience
3. Grammatics
4. Historical situation

Without considering these things first, any reading of biblical texts be they from a Formal or Dynamic Equivalence methodology will fail to grasp the true meaning.

Some examples of how dramatically doctrine can be affected by how a translation is rendered can be seen between these renderings of Mt 18:15-17 where Christians are instructed on how to interact with a sinning brother.

On the left is the translation from the Message version which is considered a very, very Dynamic Equivalence translation & on the right is the KJV version which is considered a Formal Equivalence translation.  Note the dramatic difference in the verses, verse 17 especially.

This is a very gross example of an editorial bias dramatically affecting a translation.  If the reader only read The Message translation they would think Jesus taught that you keep trying & trying (start over from scratch) with a belligerent sinning brother.  Not only is this completely counter to what Jesus said, this makes the “Jesus” of The Message translation to not be the Jesus of the Bible.  The editor of The Message translation obviously has an agenda to make his version of Jesus “nicer” than the original intent.

This is but one example from one translation how grotesquely people have tried to twist the Bible to fit their own agenda, but it is not only written translations that do this.  As people advocate any teaching they claim is from the Bible, it should be closely examined to see if it is really representing the Bible & the intent of Jesus Christ.

Do not let people try to kowtow you into thinking you are “finger-pointing” or using doctrine as a weapon rather than as medicine when you simply want to know what the Bible actually says & means about various matters & then hold people to the valid rendering of the Bible.

Doctrine matters because it is the antecedent to actions.  How we live our faith is determined by what we think the Word is teaching & if we allow others or ourselves to twist the original intent then we will not only have a distorted doctrinal position but we will have a distorted faith & practice & may ultimately be advocating a "god" & "Jesus" that is not the God of the Bible nor the Jesus Christ of the Bible.