Translating the Bible into English has become an ongoing process. Almost every decade a publisher announces a new translation or a new version. With all the various translations available today, it becomes more difficult to evaluate them.

Generally, translations come in two basic families: the “dynamic equivalent” family and the “essentially literal” family. The first family uses the idea that whatever in the native language is unclear or foreign to another language, the “dynamic equivalent” translators emphasize the reaction of the reader to the text. For example, where St. Paul often uses the word “flesh” to describe our Old Adam, the “dynamic equivalent” translators will use the phrase “sinful nature.” It is a thought-for-thought translation.

Translations in the “dynamic equivalent” family are the NIV (1978) and the new Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the New Living Translation (NLT) 1996, The Contemporary English Version (CEV) 1995, the Good News Bible (GNB, also known as Today’s English Version (TEV)) 1976, and The Message 2002.

The other translation family of the Bible into English is the “essentially literal” translation. This style of translations strives to translate the exact words of the original language into the receptor language without violating the normal rules of grammar. The emphasis is setting forth what the original authors actually wrote rather than presenting the intended meaning. The literal family of translations uses St. Paul’s technical words such as “justification,” “righteousness,” and “sanctification,” leaving it to the reader to know the proper meaning of these terms.

Translations in the “essentially literal” family of translations include the King James Version (KJV) 1611, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1957, the New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1971, the New King James Version (NKJV) 1982, and the English Standard Version (ESV) 2001.

The translators of the above-mentioned versions all agreed that the Bible is God’s Word and had a concern for accuracy and clarity in their work. Using Bibles from both translation families can be helpful in dealing with difficult passages.

However, the newer translations also have an additional criterion that readers should be aware of: changes are made over the issue of gender-neutral words. The TNIV, NRSV, and NLT translations reduce the number of male-orientated references in the Bible. In some passages the Hebrew and Greek will use a masculine noun to refer to a group of men and women. However in Psalm 34:20, the change is doctrinal. The NIV has “He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.” The newer TNIV translates this passage, “He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken.”

The change from “his bones” to “their bones” may seem insignificant. However, the change obscures the fulfillment of this verse in Christ’s crucifixion in John 19:36, and the intended meaning of the author is lost.

The change in the writing of English where a so-called singular “they/them” is used for the gender words “he/she” has gained acceptance even among careful writers. Even when a single individual is meant, people will use “anyone” or “everyone” in order to avoid using gender-specific pronouns.

What this practice does to modern gender-neutral English translations is to make it difficult for the reader to know where God referred to an individual or to a group of people. For “he” in the NIV has become “we” or “you” or “they” in the TNIV hundreds of times. A total of 45,213 uses of non-gender pronouns throws the accuracy of the TNIV in doubt. Furthermore, the TNIV used the words “you/yours/yourself” a total of 1,826 times more than the NIV. They were substituted for the objectionable words “he/him/his.” Those who have studied the TNIV critically conclude that the gender-neutral translation is so pervasive that the TNIV is unsuitable for widespread use in the church (Dr. Wayne Grudem, “The TNIV, A Critique,” unpublished essay).

Dynamic equivalent translations can provide helpful alternative wording on difficult verses. However, this type of translation is also an interpretation of the Bible, rather than letting God’s Word speak for itself. The TNIV especially takes liberties with the actual words of the Bible and gives instead what the translators believe is the “intended meaning,” A phrase which serves as a filter, keeping the reader from truly reading God’s Word in its fullness and clarity.

Revised and shortened from an article in the December 2006 Lutheran Synod Quarterly.

Thomas Rank is the pastor of Scarville Lutheran Church and School in Scarville, Iowa and a member of the ELS Doctrine Committee.