Key Issues Regarding Bible Translation
By Dr. Wayne Grudem
with Jerry Thacker

A Little History

If you went into a Christian bookstore back in the 1960’s, you could usually count on the fingers of just one hand the number of Bible translations on the shelves. Most people knew that there were two broad categories of the types of Bibles you would find. Some followed a “word-for-word” or “essentially literal” translation philosophy. An essentially literal translation “strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text in a translation, but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax” of the translation language.

The other category of Bibles was based on a “dynamic equivalence” or “thought-for-thought” translation philosophy. A dynamic equivalence translation seeks to reproduce the thoughts or ideas of the original text in the way a modern speaker would say them. Thus, whenever something in the original-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a “dynamic equivalent”—a meaning in the translation language that corresponds to or is “equivalent” to a meaning in the original-language text.

A good illustration of the difference between essentially literal and dynamic equivalence translations is found in 1 Kings 2:10, which says, in the King James Version, “So David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.” This wording is followed by most essentially literal translations because that is literally what the Hebrew text says (using Hebrew words for "slept" and "with" and "fathers").

But dynamic equivalence translators would object that people today don't say someone "slept with his fathers" – they just say that he "died." So the New Living Translation (NLT), for example, says, "Then David died and was buried in the city of David." The translation is a “thought-for-thought” translation because the main thought or idea – the idea that David died and was buried — is expressed in a way that modern speakers would use to express the same idea today.

However, not everyone thinks that is an improvement. Supporters of essentially literal translations object that some details are missing in the translation "then David died." This dynamic equivalence translation does not include the idea of sleeping as a rich metaphor for death, a metaphor in which there is a veiled hint of some day awakening from that sleep to a new life. So a hint of future resurrection is missing. The expression “slept with his fathers” also includes a hint of a corporate relationship with David’s ancestors who had previously died, but this is also missing from the dynamic equivalence translation, “then David died.”

Supporters of essentially literal translations would agree that the dynamic equivalence rendering "then David died" does translate the main idea into contemporary English, but they would add that it is better to translate all of the words of the Hebrew original, including the word shakab (which means, “to lie down, sleep”), and the words ’im (which means “with”), and ‘ab (which means “father,” and in the plural, “fathers”), since these words are in the Hebrew text as well. When these words are translated, not just the main idea but also more details of the meaning of the Hebrew original are brought over into English.

In response, supporters of dynamic equivalence translations say that modern readers won't easily understand the literal translation, “David slept with his fathers.” But essentially literal supporters reply that they will understand, because the rest of the sentence says that David was buried: “Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David” (1 Kings 2:10, ESV). The larger context begins in v. 1, “When David’s time to die drew near...” (1 Kings 2:1). Modern readers may have to ponder the expression for a moment, but then they will understand it and will then have access to much greater richness of meaning that was there in the original text.

Today, there are three categories of Bible translations. They include:

Essentially Literal: These include the English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSB), New King James Version (NKJV), King James Version (KJV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the NET Bible.

Dynamic Equivalence: These include the New Living Translation (NLT), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), the New Century Version (NCV), the Revised English Bible (REB), and the Good News Bible (GNB).

Paraphrase: These include The Message (Message), The Living Bible (LB), The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips), and The Word on the Street (previously called The Street Bible) (SB). These translations are even freer than dynamic equivalence translations in how they render Biblical passages, often finding creative new ways to express the general idea of a verse.

Mixed versions: Two popular translations do not fall exactly into the previous categories. The New International Version (NIV) and Today's New International Version (TNIV) contain substantial elements of dynamic equivalence translation mixed with a basic commitment to essentially literal translation, so they are a mixture of the two types.

Gender-Neutral Bible Translations

In recent years, a new controversy has arisen over “gender-neutral Bibles.” Called “gender accurate” or “gender inclusive” by their advocates, these translations change thousands of verses by removing the male-oriented words "father," "son," "brother," "man," and "he/him/his" from places where these words were good, accurate translations of the original Greek or Hebrew. In such places these gender-neutral Bibles only translate the general idea of the passage and omit male-oriented details of meaning. Thus, while the changes may sound more acceptable in our contemporary context, details of meaning in the original text are lost.

Several translations that employ extensive gender-neutral language include the following: NRSV, TNIV, NLT, NCV, GNB, and CEV. The translations that have adopted gender-neutral Bible language most often are those that follow a dynamic equivalence theory, although this is not necessarily the case. The Living Bible is a dynamic equivalence version that accurately renders gender language. But the New Revised Standard Version is an essentially literal translation that systematically adopts gender-neutral language.

Thus, adopting gender-neutral language is not necessary for a dynamic equivalence version, since it is no harder to say, “If your brother sins,” than it is to say, “If your brother or sister sins.” It is no harder to say, “son of man,” than “mere mortals.” It is no harder to say, “Blessed is the man” than it is to say, “Blessed are those.” The most important difference is not over theories of translation but rather about whether to convey in English the gender-specific ideas of the original text.

Are you reading the very words of the living God?

The really important question every man and woman must ask when it comes to the Bible translation they choose is very simple: “Are these the very words of God?” You want to have confidence in the fact that God’s words to you in your own Bible are, as much as is humanly possible, translating exactly what was recorded in the original languages by the original authors. There are several good reasons for desiring this and expecting this from a translation.

1. Every word of God is important.

First, notice how the Bible itself places an incredibly high value on the importance of every word that God has spoken to us:

2 Timothy 3:16 – “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

2 Peter 1:2021 – “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Proverbs 30:5 – “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 12:6 – “The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.”

Matthew 4:4 – “But he answered, ‘It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”’”

Revelation 22:18 – “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”

2. God’s words have more depth of meaning than anybody knows.

It is remarkable to see how Jesus and the New Testament authors can make arguments that depend on the smallest details of the Bible's words. For example, sometimes they make arguments that depend on a single word or even a single letter of Old Testament Scripture. Note the following examples:
In Matthew 22:42-45, Jesus asked a question of the religious leaders:

“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? [a quotation from Psalm 110:1] If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”

The word “my” in “my Lord” comes from a single letter of the Hebrew alphabet (the letter yod). Jesus makes an argument based on a single letter of the Old Testament text! It is all God's words, and it is all trustworthy.

Matthew 5:18 – For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

In the Greek language, "iota" was the name of the Hebrew yod, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. And the word translated "dot" represented a small point or projection on an individual letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Jesus is saying that every detail of meaning in God's Word will be fulfilled.

Galatians 3:16: Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.

Paul argues on the basis of the fact that a noun is singular and not plural in the Old Testament texts of Genesis 13:15; 17:7.

Jesus and Paul were willing to depend on the tiniest details of God's words in the Old Testament. They knew that God had planned his Word in such a way that it would give sufficient guidance for all of his people throughout all cultures and societies for all time. His Word is the product of his infinite wisdom and all the details of meaning are there for a purpose, and often for multiple purposes, that only God knew and understood. The connections between words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, and the relationships between the various parts of Scripture, are more complex than any one human being will ever understand.

Therefore if a particular translation philosophy results in translators omitting or adding details to the text of Scripture, even if the translators act from good motives, they change the meaning and the application of the text in ways that they may not intend or even realize. That is why God warns against changing his Word. Therefore in translating we should not change God’s words for something else or change the meaning of God’s words.

3. All Christians need to make sound decisions about the Bibles they buy and use.

Sometimes supporters of gender-neutral Bibles claim that the controversy is just an obscure argument between scholars about their favorite translation theory. This implies that lay persons should not get involved in the controversy but should just trust scholars in their judgments. This is a misleading way to represent the controversy.

Let’s look at the principles involved. We’ll use Today’s New International Version (TNIV) as our example. Underneath all of the pages of argument about the TNIV there is a basic, very simple question: Should Bible translations avoid using specific male examples to teach a broader truth?

For example, should we avoid using male-oriented words to translate Psalm 1:1, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked”? Is the word “man” offensive or objectionable, even when the original Hebrew text clearly means "the man" and refers to an example of an individual male person? Should we avoid using male-oriented words to translate Luke 17:3, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,” even when the original Greek text clearly means "your brother" and "him"? Should we avoid using male-oriented words to translate Proverbs 13:1, “A wise son heeds his father’s instruction,” even when the original Hebrew clearly means "son" (not "child") and "father" (not "parent")?

In the TNIV, in over 3,600 examples like these the question is not really the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word (for those meanings of ancient words have not changed). Nor is it a question of technical translation theory that lay persons cannot understand.

The question is, when there is a malespecific example in the original Greek or Hebrew text, should we translate it as a malespecific example in English? The TNIV translators have decided, "No, we should not, but should make the translation more gender-neutral.” But those who object to the TNIV say, "Yes, we should keep the malespecific example that is there in the original language. We should translate the meaning of the original text as accurately as we can in English."

4. gender-neutral Bibles (like the TNIV and NLT) change thousands of singular verses to plural and thus diminish the Bible's emphasis on individual responsibility and relationship with God.

Once again, let’s use the newest gender-neutral Bible, the TNIV, as an example. When the TNIV changes James 1:12 from "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life" to "Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life," we are suddenly talking about a group that perseveres and a group that receives a reward. The emphasis on an individual persevering under trial is lost. Someone might wonder, "What if I persevere under trial but others in my group do not? Will I still receive a reward or not? And will this be a group reward (like the Super Bowl trophy), since it says 'they will receive the crown of life'?

Make that kind of change over 2,000 times (as the TNIV has done) and you have changed a major focus of the entire Bible. The Bible has much emphasis on individual responsibility before God and an individual person's relationship to God, but that is greatly watered down by thousands of inaccurate plurals in the TNIV Bible. This is a serious alteration of the Word of God.

In addition to these more than 2000 changes of singulars to plurals, the TNIV makes over 1600 more changes of other kinds to remove men and male-oriented words from the Bible, sometimes just deleting words completely, sometimes by doing things like changing “son” to “children” and “father” to “parent.”

But were the problems fixed in the 2005 edition? After the TNIV New Testament received so much criticism in 2002, some people heard a rumor that they "fixed the problems" in the 2005 TNIV, which includes both the New Testament and the Old Testament. In fact, while they changed a handful of verses for the better, they changed others for the worse. The research scholars working with The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in Louisville, Kentucky went through the entire 2005 edition of the TNIV and updated their online list of translation inaccuracies in the TNIV (www.no-tniv.com). For the New Testament that list has now been changed from 901 inaccuracies for the 2002 New Testament to 910 inaccuracies for the 2005 New Testament. And another 2,776 inaccuracies have now been added for the Old Testament, making a total of 3,686 translation inaccuracies in the TNIV (see the entire list at the end of this booklet, or see www.no-tniv.com or www.cbmw.org). No, the problems have not at all been fixed! The same gender-neutral policies prevail.

5. The real controversy is whether to water down or omit details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive.

The deepest difference over gender-neutral translations is not really about whether people will be able to understand the Bible today. Rather, it is about whether translators should exclude details that seem culturally offensive in the contemporary culture.

After all, the words in dispute are only five: “father,” “son,” “brother,” “man,” and “he/him/his.” What young person 1834 cannot understand these words? The ultimate reason for deleting these words thousands of times is not that people cannot understand them, for they are extraordinarily simple and common words. The ultimate reason is that the translators decided it was objectionable today to translate literally the Bible’s uses of an individual male example to teach a general truth in thousands of passages.

For example, it is not that young adults cannot understand, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalm 1:1). It is that the gender-neutral Bible translators find it objectionable that the Bible used a single male example to teach a general truth, so they changed the meaning to "Blessed are those … ". It is not that young adults cannot understand the words, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3). Nor would young adults have any difficulty in realizing that the verse also applies to a sister who sins, any more than they would have difficulty understanding that “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20:17) also applies to not coveting your neighbor’s husband!

For centuries people have easily understood that when the Bible uses an example of an individual man or woman to teach a general principle, the principle also applies to people of the opposite sex. The parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:18) teaches both men and women about persistence in prayer. The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1132) also applies to prodigal daughters. We do not have to change the words of the Bible for such general applications to be understood. The Bible frequently teaches by using concrete, specific examples, not just vague principles and not just groups.

So the controversy is not really about whether young people can understand that "If your brother sins, rebuke him" also applies to a sister who sins. Rather, the problem is that the TNIV translators found it objectionable that Jesus used an individual example of a male human being ("If your brother sins...") to teach a general truth. Therefore the TNIV changed Jesus' words to "If a brother or sister sins against you …," adding "or sister" and "against you," which are words that Jesus did not say), and in doing so they failed to translate Jesus’ words accurately.

The bottom line issue, then, is not whether the Bible should be understandable today. Nobody is arguing for the preservation of archaic words like “thee” or “thou.” The bottom line issue is that gender-neutral translations such as the TNIV omit details of meaning in many hundreds of verses because of the translator’s objections to the malespecific meaning of those verses. They found the Bible’s frequent use of malespecific examples to be offensive in the modern culture, and they decided not to translate them accurately as a result.

6. The Deepest Danger

The deepest danger in adopting gender-neutral policies such as those by which the TNIV was translated is that hundreds of other details that the modern culture finds offensive may be watered down in future translations. More and more, we will have a Bible that does not accurately represent in English what the original Hebrew and Greek languages said. Rather these Bibles will represent something that the translators think will be a little more acceptable in modern culture. But then we no longer have the Word of God in all its wisdom and richness. Instead, we have the Word of God mixed with the words of man.

7. Be careful which Bible you recommend and which one you choose.

Choosing which Bible to read and trust is an important decision. Christians need to care enough about their own sanctification to choose a translation that conveys the very words of God. Look for a Bible that you can use and trust as your daily study Bible. Remember, something that has thousands of "words of man" that are not accurately representing the very words of God will have a harmful effect on your Christian life, your walk with God, and your church. May God help you to choose wisely.