There are a number of verses I like to look at as a personal ‘road test’ used to assess an English language Bible translation for textual basis, accuracy, theological bias (conservative or liberal), translation approach (complete equivalence, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), and in a few cases, the beauty of the translation.
Ultimately, I think an English reader will normally benefit from using more than one translation – at least one literal one and one more dynamic one, which can help bring out the meaning. The advantage of a literal translation is that it stays close to the inspired texts in the original language; the weakness can be that it may not always communicate particularly clearly or well in English. Conversely, a more dynamic translation’s weakness is that it may stray more from the original text and be more interpretative, giving the translators’ opinions; the advantage that it will communicate clearly to the English reader.
For me, the best approach is to only move towards the more dynamic approach when the translation would otherwise be unclear or misleading, but this should be kept in check to avoid the translators straying into interpretative territory.
Brief explanations of what is preferable in translation follow each of the following verses. By checking your translation against these verses, you will get a good idea of the textual basis underlying your Bible translation, how accurate and clear it is, and what theological biases it has (if any) either good or bad.
1 Samuel 8:16‘He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best
young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.’ (NASB)
A good verse to show how strictly the Old Testament translation is sticking to the Masoretic Hebrew text (‘young men’), or how readily the translators will take a more eclectic approach making use of the Septuagint or other versions, as then they will have ‘cattle’ or similar as this supposedly makes more sense in context (i.e. the Hebrew text is believed to be corrupted here). It is possible that occasionally the Septuagint in Greek – being older than existing Hebrew texts – may represent an earlier more accurate form of the Hebrew texts.
Matthew 10:8‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (EMTV)
‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (NKJV).
‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (NIV)
This is an interesting verse to check out the textual basis of the translation of the New Testament because the three commonly used published texts differ from each other in this verse and in a way that does show up in translation. The Majority Text (the Byzantine Text-Type found in the majority of Greek manuscripts) omits the words ‘raise the dead’ – as in the EMTV above. The Textus Receptus or Received Text (the form of the Byzantine text used in the historic Reformation translations of the Bible) has ‘cleanse the lepers’ before ‘raise the dead.’ The Nestle-Aland/UBS eclectic text has: ‘raise the dead’ before ‘cleanse those who have leprosy.’ This is the text most modern translations are based on.
Genesis 1:2‘The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the
Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.’ (NASB)
This verse is a test of theological bias. The verse should mention the ‘Spirit of God’ and not some impersonal ‘power of God’ or ‘wind of God’ that obscures the reference to the Holy Spirit.
Genesis 19:24‘Then
Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire
from Yahweh out of the sky.’ (WEB)
An accurate translation here will mention Yahweh, Jehovah or ‘the LORD’ as if two persons – one raining the sulphur on Sodom, from another in heaven.
Ruth 2:20‘And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, Blessed is he of Jehovah, who has not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said to her, The man is
near of kin to us, he is of our redeemers.’ (MKJV)
When translated properly as here, this verse brings out very clearly the OT concept of the “Kinsman-Redeemer” so crucial in understanding Christ’s office as the Redeemer of his people.
Psalm 25:14‘The LORD is
the friend of those who obey him and he affirms his covenant with them.’ (GNB)
Though the Hebrew can be translated otherwise, without loss of accuracy (e.g. secrecy or intimacy of the LORD), this brings out the beauty of the covenant as bond of friendship between God and his people.
Isaiah 7:14‘So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold,
the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.’ (MKJV)
No translation is really acceptable to a conservative Christian which does not have ‘virgin’ here. Some liberal translations have 'young woman' instead. Although this is a permissible translation from Hebrew, it is clear from Matthew's interpretation of this verse in his Gospel, that he regarded the correct translation as 'virgin' (which is what the Greek word is in the New Testament - and in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament).
Ezekiel 33:11‘Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord Jehovah, I do not have
delight in the death of the wicked, except in the wicked turning from his way, and so to live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! For why will you die, O house of Israel?’ (LITV)
Most translation have ‘have no pleasure in’ or ‘desire’ or even worse ‘want’ but ‘delight’ is the best translation by far, as this confirms that all God’s desires are fulfilled (cf Job 23:13) while allowing that God delights in many things that he does not in all occasions come to pass (cf Jer 9:24).
Jonah 3:3‘So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of Jehovah. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city,
of three days’ journey.’ (ASV)
The meaning of the phrase ‘of three days’ journey’ is ambiguous. It is better left that way in the translation rather than interpreting it only one way, possibly wrongly. Some say the city was three days’ journey across or three days' journey away or a visit required three days to see the city. All of these are possibilities.
Haggai 2:7‘And I will shake all nations, and they shall come to
the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.’ (NKJV)
Many translations miss the Messianic prophecy contained here. The “Desire of All Nations” is a person – it is a title of the Messiah, and it foretells of the Gentile nations coming to Christ as their Saviour. Many translations misinterpret this verse so as to completely remove this prophecy, e.g. the NASB is representative: ‘’I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.’
Micah 5:2‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose
goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.’ (WEB)
The verse really must be ‘goings forth’ not ‘origins’, and from ‘everlasting’ or at very least from ‘the days of eternity’ as this verse concerns the eternal Son of God.
Matthew 2:10‘When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.’ (KJV)
This is a good verse to see how literal/formal equivalent a translation is. A good one will have rejoiced/great joy repeated. Dynamic equivalents will change to ‘overjoyed’ or something similar and not mention both rejoice and joy.
Matthew 16:18‘And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ (EMTV)
Firstly, the verse must not be translated to suggest that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. This is almost certainly not what the verse means. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder.
Matthew 19:9‘And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for
sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.’ (ESV)
The word traditionally rendered ‘fornication’ is ‘porneia’ and probably includes other kinds of serious sex sin and not just full sexual intercourse. So ‘sexual immorality’ or similar is a better translation.
Mark 2:19‘And Jesus said to them, “Can the
wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast”.’ (ESV)
The phrase translated ‘wedding guests’ is a Hebrew idiom literally meaning ‘children’ or ‘sons of the bridechamber’. If translated as literally as this, the meaning is either lost or made quite misleading.
Luke 4:22‘And all they
bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words, which proceeded out of his mouth, and said: Is not this Joseph's son?’ (Tyndale)
It is much better to translate as ‘bare witness to him’ than ‘all spoke well of him’ which is probably not true in the situation and not the primary meaning of the Greek word. You can bare witness even when telling others and voicing disapproval, which is what Christ actually encountered.
Luke 10:34‘He went over to him, poured oil and wine on his wounds and bandaged them; then he put the man on his own animal and took him to an inn, where he took care of him.’ (GNB)
Actually a literal translation here will give the misleading impression that the order of events was that the wounds were bandaged and then the oil was poured on. A Greek reader would know from the Greek participles used that the oil and wine were put on first, then the wounds bandaged. Usually a more functionally equivalent translation will correctly clarify this by changing the order of events round into natural English.
John 3:16‘For God loved the world in this way: that he gave his
one-of-a-kind Son, in order that
everyone believing in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ (Author’s Translation)
‘One-of-a-kind’ or ‘one and only’ is a more accurate translation of the Greek word monogenes that the traditional ‘Only begotten’ which misunderstands the meaning of the Greek word. It is not ‘only generated’ but ‘one-of-a-kind’. Likewise ‘everyone believing’ or ‘every who believes’ is better than ‘whosoever believes’ though from the KJV we are probably stuck with this in most English translations.
Acts 5:30‘The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.’ (ESV)
First, it should read ‘tree’ here not ‘cross’ which is interpretative and definitely not the word Luke used. More importantly, it should not read ‘whom you killed and hanged on a tree’ as in KJV, which makes it sound as if a corpse already killed was then hanged on a tree.
Acts 20:28‘Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd
the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.’ (HCSB)
When correctly translated as here, this verse is a great prooftext that Christ is God. Unfortunately some translations fluff it.
Romans 9:5‘Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of
Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen.’ (NIV)
Liberal translations often mess about with the punctuation or word order here to rule out Christ being called God in this verse. The NIV is one of the best in English – clearly stating Christ’s full deity.
1 Corinthians 7:1‘Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man
not to touch a woman.’ (NASB)
Many translations try to interpret Paul one way or another – usually either saying ‘not to have sexual relations with’ (ESV) or ‘not to marry’ (GNB). I think the ESV is correct, but I would argue it is better to translate what Paul actually wrote and leave it for commentators and preachers to explain it – and leave it as ‘not to touch’ in the translation.
1 Corinthians 7:36‘But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward
his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.’ (NKJV)
Again this verse is translated literally here – and the job of interpreting it left to commentators or preachers. Who is ‘his virgin’? is the issue. Most translations which seek to interpret it, regard it as ‘betrothed’ (the virgin he is going to marry) and this is probably right, although ASV and NASB have ‘virgin daughter’ putting the man in a ‘father of the bride’ position.
Philippians 2:6-7‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not it consider it robbery to be equal with God, but
made himself of no account, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.’ (Author’s Translation)
This is well-known as one of the most difficult verses to translate in the entire New Testament. One error to be avoided is the notion that Christ gave up his deity or attributes of deity when he became incarnate. The admittedly literal translation ‘emptied himself’ (instead of ‘made himself nothing’ or ‘made no account of himself’) is open to this error and probably best avoided. The older versions usually have ‘made himself of no reputation’ which is also good. ‘Made himself of no account’ though not used in any translation I could find, would capture the meaning of the verse well in my opinion.
Colossians 2:8‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the
basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’ (NKJV)
What Paul has in view here is really the world’s viewpoint, the basic, elementary principles that the world assumes are true. Some translations miss the point and think this refers to worldly superstitions or spiritual matters, but it need not be limited to this.
2 Timothy 3:16‘
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.’ (ESV)
Most translations feel bound to go with the traditional ‘inspired’ here but this really quite misleading. The crucial point of the word Paul uses here is not that the Scriptures are ‘inspired’ writings in the sense that we might say Shakespeare was inspired when he wrote Hamlet or King Lear. The true meaning is that the Scripture are breathed out by God. They are in the truest sense, God’s own words. They are literally ‘God-breathed’ (NIV). The KJV ‘given by inspiration of God’ is a little better as this at least hints that the ‘inspiration of God’ is something God actively does in order to give us the Scriptures. ‘God-breathed’ (NIV) is much better and entirely literal, but this translation in the ESV is best of all – it accurately conveys the Greek in a natural English sentence. The worst is where the sentence is re-worded to say ‘Every inspired Scripture is…’ implying that not all scripture is inspired.
1 Peter 3:3-4‘You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. Instead, your beauty should consist of
your true inner self, the ageless beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of the greatest value in God's sight.’ (GNB)
There is a tricky Greek phrase to translate in verse 4. Literally it is ‘the hidden man of the heart’ which is either meaningless or liable to be terribly misunderstood when rendered as literally as this in English. It is a Greek idiom meaning something like ‘true inner self’ as here in GNB or ‘the inmost self’ (REB). This may be an occasion where the principle ‘as free as necessary’ should be applied to the translation as the point is that it should be inner beauty that adorns a Christian woman. Certainly, it is not that she should have a mysterious ‘hidden man of the heart’!
2 Peter 1:1‘To those who through the righteousness of
our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.’ (NIV)
A good translation will make it clear that ‘our God’ is our ‘Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Some translations mistranslate as ‘our God and our Saviour’ implying two persons are involved, which is certainly not what the Greek means.
2 Peter 1:20‘knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture
is of any private interpretation.’ (NKJV)
The innocuous-looking last phrase in this verse has caused perhaps as much controversy as any verse in the New Testament! There are at least three different ways the verse can be taken. It is unclear whether the verse means that the Scripture is not allowed to be privately interpretated by a Christian (BBE) (this would be Rome’s traditional view – that the Church will define what Scripture means for the faithful), or is incapable of being interpreted by an individual privately (CEV), or that no prophecy comes about through the prophet’s own imagination (NET) but by revelation (as the next verse makes clear). I think the NET’s interpretation is actually correct, but it remains very much an interpretation of the meaning of the text rather than a translation. A more literal, neutral translation such as the NKJV’s here is probably best, as it leaves it up to expositors to explain what the phrase means. Some translations choose one of the possible meanings for the reader. Unfortunately, if they have chosen the wrong one, then the readers are misled.
1 John 3:9‘No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.’ (NASB)
Many translations simply state that no one born of God sins, which is misleading, since we do continue to sin after we are born again as Christian believers. But we no longer practise sin. It happens but we do not work at it and revel in it. The NASB and some other translations bring out John’s point much better.
