Dynamic Translations

For the past few year to this week, I have read the ESV almost exclusively. I become hooked on the idea of a literal translation. My other Bibles have been the NASB and NKJV… all of them similar in philosophy. I had pretty much decided that the more dynamic translations were evil. Then Sunday night I read Romans in the New Living Translation. It really made the book that I had read so many times (almost to the point of memorization) come to life. I had to keep checking back with a literal translation (I was checking with the ASV) and had nothing to object to. It still seemed to closely mirror the original text. It just really made a lot more sense.

Since I do not have many obligations this week, I have been reading many different translations that are more dynamic than the ESV. I have just been reading through random books and passages like one would read a novel. That is, not for study or reflection as much as to just read what was said to see what was said.

There is one thing I have come across a few times which is bothering me though. Sometimes I feel like the liberties taken with the text are too great. For instance, I John 1:9 in the ISV reads:

If we make it our habit to confess our sins, in his faithful righteousness he forgives us for those sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

I am not saying that making it a habit to confess sins is not Biblical, but is that what is being referred to in this passage? I can say that interpreting the text like this would make it less apt to be used in the sinner’s prayer-type theology! However, it bothers me the idea is inserted to the text that was not already there. Maybe there is a reason for it, but no other translations do that I can find. It is simple “if we confess our sins” (NASB).

So I have to proceed with caution. I like the translations that are very readable but as accurate as possible. The ESV is accurate to the Greek and Hebrew, but I’m afraid to my Generation Y mind it doesn’t communicate the way it should without having to think through the English itself.

Here are my thoughts on some of the translations I have been reading:

• New English Bible: This translations reads really well most of the time. Even though it is more dated than the others I am looking at, it reads naturally but doesn’t really interpret the text much, but it is still great to read. My problem with it is that the translators seem to have a low view of the preservation of the Bible. Some weird renderings of text are taken.. some of which don’t even make logical sense as much as the commonly accepted one.
• New Living Translation: This is probably my favorite translation right now. It somehow manages to reflect the original text really well while not adding or removing very much. It’s very readable. Despite it’s history (the very paraphrased TLB followed by looser earlier versions), the 2007 NLT Bible has a possibility of becoming my main secondary Bible–second because I don’t know if I can trust it enough to be my main Bible.
• International Standard Version: This Bible reads very well as well. It claims to be a middle-of-the-road between dynamic and literal, but I find it to add to the text too much sometimes, as I noted earlier in the post. I’ll be reading it some more though.
• Today’s New International Version and New English Translation: I read both of these today. I found them pretty similar. I just couldn’t get into them.

It also hurts that I don’t have many of these translations in print. I would probably read the NLT more if I had it in print, but for now I will be reading the NEB because I do have it in print.

It is both a blessing and a curse to have so many translations of God’s word in my language. A blessing and a curse indeed.