As we finish the year’s dialogue on Bibliology, we conclude with the initial question many ask concerning this doctrine, “which translation of the Bible should I use and why?” Although I cannot tell you which translation you should absolutely use, I can tell you the benefits and drawbacks of each while also giving you my personal preference. The first thing that you should consider when using a translation is what type of translation it is. There are three main categories of translations in the English language: a formal equivalence, a dynamic equivalence translation, and paraphrases. Philip Comfort communicates that in the formal equivalence theory “the translator attempts to render the exact words (hence the word formal, meaning ‘form-for-form’) of the original language into the [target] language. This kind of translation is commonly known as a ‘literal’ translation; others call it a ‘word-for-word’ translation.” The most literal translation is the interlinear which contains the text in its original language with the English equivalent under the text. Though the literal translation desires to come as close as possible to the original languages, there are always issues such as the choice of a word or ordering of a phrase in which the translator will have to make a decision. In other words, there is no completely literal translation in the English language. That is why it is beneficial to have knowledge of the original languages to aid in the study of the Bible.

Comfort states that the dynamic or functional equivalence is “a thought-for-thought translation (as opposed to a word-for-word translation).” Generally, the King James Version, English Standard Version, and New American Standard Bible would be considered literal or formal equivalence translations. The New International Version and Holman Christian Standard Bible are good examples of dynamic equivalence translations. There is also a third type of translation, the paraphrase, which allows quite a bit of theological liberty from the manuscripts of the original languages to the final translation. In fact, a paraphrase would almost be considered a type of commentary. The Message and the New Living Translation are good examples of paraphrases.

Below is a chart to help one determine the accuracy and readability of these various translations. The chart is subject to differing opinions, but, for the most part, it correctly communicates that the closer a translation is to the “word for word” end of the spectrum, the more accurate it will be as relates to the Biblical content within the original languages. However, it is also true that such a translation is generally more difficult to read and understand according to current conversational trends. Also, the more a translation moves toward readability or “thought for thought” the further away it drifts from accuracy. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, such as the King James Version which is both less accurate and harder to read than the English Standard Bible due to its archaic or out-of-date language.

See here for a relevant chart.

Consider the recommendations from Christianbook.com as relates to this chart:

At one end of the spectrum is the word-for-word translation (also referred to as a formal equivalent or literal translation). This approach seeks to represent the original Greek and Hebrew in a more word-for-word manner and preserve—as far as possible—original word order, grammar, and syntax. Many prefer this method because each Greek or Hebrew word is generally represented by the same English word in all occurrences. . . . On the other end of the spectrum we find the thought-for-thought translation (also referred to as a paraphrase or functional equivalent). This approach is more concerned with putting meaning of the passage in a colloquial language familiar to the reader. This type of translation seeks to render the ideas of the original text as accurately as possible in the target language (like English). . . . The middle of the spectrum is occupied by the dynamic equivalent, or mediating translation. These translations seek to strike a balance between the two translation approaches. They are sometimes more literal, sometimes more colloquial or conversational depending on the subject and text. . . . Many find it helpful to consult more than one translation—or to use different translations in different settings. While a more literal translation may be preferred for study, a less literal translation may be desired for devotional or casual reading.

My preference is the New American Standard Bible, possibly because this is the Bible from which I started memorizing Scripture and have continued doing so to this day. I like its accuracy, though admittedly it is lacking in the area of readability. The English Standard Version boasts of its accuracy and readability, which is why we use it at Grace Baptist Church. I hope this has been an illuminating year on what we believe about the Bible. Until next year, this is Pastor Daniel writing, “may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.”