by Edward D. Andrews, Chief Translator UASV

The Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in what is known as Koine Greek, namely, common Greek. The Bible has been translated into at least hundreds of other languages, possibly as many as 2,600. Of the billions of people who have read the Bible in the past and today, an extremely small percentage can read and understand the original languages and therefore, it must be translated into the common languages of the people. What principles should guide the Bible translation process, and how did these guide the rendering of the King James Version 1611, the Revised Standard Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, and the Updated American Standard Version 2021? There are two different translation philosophies: the formal equivalence (literal, aka word-for-word) and the dynamic equivalent (interpretive).

Our primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place. Our primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator.

Dynamic Equivalence is an interpretative Bible translation philosophy. Examples of such translations would be the CEV, TEV (GNT), NIV, NRSV, NLT, and so on. These translation committees take the literal translation and then alter it by going beyond what was written to give the reader what they believe the Bible author meant in place of the actual words.

Formal Equivalence is a literal translation philosophy, which means they seek to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors. As was stated above, the meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. Examples of such translations would be the KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, LEB, CSB, UASV. It should be noted that the ESV has designated itself an Essentially Literal translation. This means that it is not a literal translation along the lines of the RSV 1881 and the ASV 1901. The same would apply to the CSB and the HCSB as they are self-designated an Optimal Equivalence. The former literal translation NASB in its 2020 revision has also left the literal translation philosophy by adopting to a minor degree an interpretive translation philosophy.

Some who favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy has made claims that literal translations are strict, word-for-word, interlinear-style translations, asking the question ‘would this enable the reader to get closest to what was written in the original languages?’ This has become a pattern for those who favor a dynamic equivalent translation, to use an interlinear Bible, which is not a translation, but rather a Bible study tool to refer to it as a word for word translation because they know that this phrase is tied to translations like the KJV, RSV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, and the UASV. Bill Mounce, the author of Basics of Biblical Greek and former Chief translator of the ESV but now the Chief translator of the NIV has used this mistaken way of referring to literal translations. Mounce is a proponent for dynamic equivalent (interpretive) Bible translations. Mounce used Romans 3:22 as his example of a so-called literal translation, which is nothing more than an interlinear Bible study tool.

Interlinear Study Tool

The interlinear Bible page is set up with the left column where you will find the original language text, with the English word-for-word lexical gloss beneath each original language word; generally, the right column contains an English translation like the ESV, NASB, or the NIV. The interlinear translation in the left column and the modern-day English translation in the right column are parallel to each other. This allows the student to make immediate comparisons between the translation and the interlinear, helping one to determine the accuracy of the translation.

The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI), Produced by Christian Publishing House

Romans 3:23 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
 23 πάντεςAll γὰρfor ἥμαρτονthey sinned καὶand ὑστεροῦνταιthey are lacking τῆςof the δόξηςglory τοῦof the θεοῦ,God, 

Romans 3:23 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

The interlinear and the English equivalent in the translation are not generated by taking the English word(s) from the translation and then placing them under the original language text. Whether we are dealing with Hebrew or Greek as our original language text, each word will have two or more English equivalents. What factors go into the choice of which word will go under the original language word? One factor is the period in which the book was written. As the New Testament was penned in the first century, during the era of Koine Greek, as opposed to classical Greek of centuries past, and then there is the context of what comes before and after the word under consideration.

Therefore, the translator will use his training in the original language, or a lexicon to determine if he is working with a noun, verb, the definite article, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, participle, and the like. Further, say he is looking at the verb, it must be determined what mood it is in (indicative, subjunctive, imperative, etc.), what tense (present, future, aorist, etc.), what voice (active, middle, passive, etc.), and so forth. In addition, the English words under the original language text are generated from grammatical form, the alterations to the root, which affect its role within the sentence, for which he will look to the Hebrew or Greek grammar reference. An interlinear study tool is not interested in grammar and syntax, but rather only in the lexical English corresponding equivalent. It is not until we bring our lexical glosses over into English that we begin our investigation of the grammar and syntax.

Returning to Bill Mounce, his example that he uses in his mistake view of a literal translation is Romans 3:22.

Image 1 Taken from Bill Moune’s article Literal Translations and Paraphrases

Romans 3:22 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
 22 δικαιοσύνηrighteousness δὲbut θεοῦof God διὰthrough πίστεωςfaith (trust) Ἰησοῦof Jesus Χριστοῦ,Christ, εἰςinto πάνταςall τοὺςthe πιστεύοντας,(ones) believing (trusting), οὐnot γάρfor ἐστινthere is διαστολή.distinction.

Romans 3:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
²² even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Bill Mounce writes, “Without being simplistic, I have learned that translation is not translating words; it is translating meaning. To put it another way, translation is the process by which we reproduce the meaning of the text; translation does not replicate the form of the text.” What Mounce is really saying here is that he believes that the translator should interpret the meaning of the text, and this is what is to be given to the Bible reader as a translation. Words carry the meaning of a text, so words are to be translated. When you interpret a verse, you want to express what the author meant by the words that he used. Mounce will want you to believe that it is either-or. However, it is not as you will see.

Bill Mounce writes, “Although I have already expressed my dislike of this term, I will use it here to make a point. If someone wants a ‘literal’ translation, using the term ‘literal’ in its improper sense, there is only one example of a ‘literal translation’: the interlinear.” No, this is not true. Mounce is trying to redefine translations by calling a Bible study tool (interlinear) a translation like J. Scott Duvall and J. Danial Hays, and many others who favor interpretive translation philosophy. You will notice above in Romans 3:23 and Mounce’s Romans 3:22 a choppiness, a roughness that even sounds a bit nonsensical. [righteousness but of God through faith of Jesus of Christ into all the believing not for there is distinction] On this Mounce writes, “Is it understandable? Barely. Is it translation? No. As much as I would like the word ‘literal’ to go away, I doubt it will. Will people start to use the word accurately? I hope so. But please, do not believe the marketing hype: there is no such thing as a ‘literal’ translation. The very idea is linguistic nonsense.”

You will also notice below that the literal translations are not like this at all. Remember, it is not until we bring our lexical glosses over into English that we begin our investigation of the grammar and syntax. An interlinear will list the Greek words in Greek word order, and under each Greek word there will be a gloss for its meaning. See Romans 3:22 in the graphic above.

Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words isolated. Now, to demonstrate that Mounce is moving the translation goal post like J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Mounce used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.

ASV 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction;	NASB 1995 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;	UASV 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
RSV 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;	ESV 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:	CSB 22 The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction.

As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB 1995, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Mounce is trying to lead us to believe is a word-for-word literal translation, i.e., a literal translation.

Below is an example from Duvall and Hays in the third edition of Grasping God’s Word (GGW).

Approaches to Translating God’s Word The process of translating is more complicated than it appears. Some people think that all you have to do when making a translation is to define each word and string together all the individual word meanings. This assumes that the source language (in this case, Greek or Hebrew) and the receptor language (such as English) are exactly alike. If life could only be so easy! In fact, no two languages are exactly alike. For example, look at a verse chosen at random—from the story of Jesus healing a demon-possessed boy (Matt. 17:18). The word-for-word English rendition is written below a transliteration of the Greek: Kai epetimēsen autō ho Iēsous kai exēlthen ap autou to daimonion And rebuked it the Jesus and came out from him the demon kai etherapeuthē ho pais apo tēs hōras ekeinēs and was healed the boy from the hour that Should we conclude that the English line is the most accurate translation of Matthew 17:18 because it attempts a literal rendering of the verse, keeping also the word order? Is a translation better if it tries to match each word in the source language with a corresponding word in a receptor language? Could you even read an entire Bible “translated” in this way?[1]

Because these authors favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy, they are not presenting the literal translation philosophy as it truly is. They give you, the reader, an interlinear rendering of Matthew 17:18, and then refer to it as a literal translation, which by association would include the ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and the UASV. Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that the authors J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays are being disingenuous at best, let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translations.^[2]

ASV 18 And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour.	NASB1995 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.	UASV 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
RSV 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.	ESV 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.	CSB 18 Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that moment the boy was healed.

As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations, the ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally equivalent CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays tried to offer us as a word-for-word translation, i.e., a literal translation.

Bible Study Tool

Interlinear Bible Study Tool: WH, UBS, NA, etc.

Literal Translations

• Literal Bible Translations: KJV, YLT, ASV, RSV, NASB1995, UASV
• Semi-Literal Translations: ESV, CSB

Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations

• Hyper Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations: CEV, GNB, TEV, ERV, SEB, NIRV
• Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations: NLT, ICB, ISV, GW
• Moderate Interpretive Dynamic Equivalent Translations: NIV, NRSV, NET, NABRE

The Bible scholars who favor the interpretive dynamic equivalent translations are making a joint effort to redefine the spectrum of Bible translations, which will aid their cause of trying to move publishers away from producing literal Bible translations. We have gone from the conservative historical-grammatical interpretation (objective) to the liberal-moderate historical-critical method of interpretation (subjective), from the conservative goal in textual studies of getting back to the original words to the liberal-moderate getting back to the earliest text possible, and from conservative literal translation to the liberal-moderate interpretive translations.

Can the Original Language Text be Translated Perfectly into Any Modern-Day language?

First, there is no perfect translation into any language at present. Second, literal translations are going to get you closest to what God said (ASV1901, UASV2021, NASB1995), so the reader can determine what God meant by the Words that His authors used. Third, there are semi-literal translations that are still exceptionally good (ESV2001, LEB2012, CSB2017, but they do not remain faithful to the literal translation philosophy as often as they should. Now, before you object, we understand that you cannot be literal every time. But these translations abandon the literal approach many times when it is unnecessary.

Today, the churchgoer who reads the English Bible has many modern translations from which to choose. Some of these translations have become exceedingly popular by reason of their making it easier to read, trying for a smoother flow of language, and seeking many turns of speech that stands out in some particular way, or well-chosen expressions. However, as seen from other articles on this blog, these are likely to have errors and even contradict each other by taking too many liberties, or because of misinterpreting the original language terms, or due to theological bias. Clearly, few would disagree that accuracy and dependability are the most important requirements of a great Bible translation. Therefore, it would seem logically and reasonably that a literal translation is to be preferred. This is especially true if you are claiming that you believe that the Bible is the inspired, fully inerrant Word of God. Which translation do you think is the most accurate and dependable?

There are a few things that get in the way of a perfect translation. This is what we will consider below.

TEXTUAL BARRIERS

1. We do not have the original manuscripts (Hebrew/Aramaic for the OT and Greek for the NT) that were penned by the original authors. We have original language manuscripts that are copies.
2. And then, there are 1,400 years of corruption, where some copyists (scribes) took liberties with the text at times by adding material. Then, there were far more occurrences of the accidental changes as well.
3. Nevertheless, the era of corruption was followed by 500+ years of restoration. Think of it this way. You are at a farmhouse, and you find a 1967 Camaro junked. You buy it, take it home, and for years you spend thousands restoring it to mint condition. Now, while it is in mint condition, it is not the original. And it can never be the original, only the original can be the original. Note that we have 5,898 original language manuscripts of the Greek NT, and many dates within decades or a century of the originals.
4. Even if we found an original Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, we would still have to take decades to establish that it was the original.
5. We do not need the original manuscript, we only need the original wording, and we have that between the 1881 Westcott and Hort (WH) Greek New Testament text and the 2012 Nestle-Aland (NA) Greek New Testament text. In fact, the 1881 WH and the NA texts are 99.5% the same because the monumental dozens of papyri New Testament manuscripts, many dating within decades of the originals, that were discovered in the 20th century did not change anything, they only affirmed what we already had.

LANGUAGE BARRIER

1. Our understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek is vastly improved since 1881. However, it is still not perfect.
2. When we render an original language word into modern language, it needs to be understood that we lose some sense of the meaning that would have been conveyed to the original audience in their language, and we gain some extra baggage with the modern-day words as well. This is not as significant as some make it out to be.
3. However, the English language has more words than any other language and while we can cover any Greek word, it is up to the reader to look at Greek-English dictionaries to discover the full meaning of what the original audience would have known just by looking at the Greek word in that verse. And most good translations will provide footnotes on important original language words, to expound on what the mean, the full sense of what was meant. There are interpretive translations that try to do this (CEV, NLT, TEV, etc.), but they are to not be fully trusted.
4. The ASV in 1901 was the best literal translation in its day it is the most literal translation, until now, as the UASV can now be labeled the most literal modern-day Bible translation. We have made every effort to retain the ASV when possible. We have only updated and corrected what needed to be updated and corrected.
5. Every effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern English language permits and where a literal rendering does not distort the meaning. There are some literal words that bring the reader to a more insightful understanding, a deeper understanding of God’s Word because it forces the reader to investigate further in Bible study tools like word dictionaries and commentaries. However, there are others that do not, and we have opted for another lexical term. However, we do still offer footnotes that will give you the literal rendering. For example, offspring and at times descendant instead of seed. In most occurrences in which the Hebrew word (זֶרַע zera) arises in the Old Testament, it means offspring or descendant. Zera is used for animal offspring in Genesis 7:3. The Greek word (σπέρμα sperma) is also used in reference to offspring or descendant. (Compare Matt. 13:24; 1 Cor. 15:38; Heb. 11:11; John 7:42.) Jesus Christ used the related word (σπόρος sporos) seed (sown) to signify the word of God. – Luke 8:11.

Literal Renderings That Lead the Reader to Deeper Insight and
Understanding When Investigated

Proverbs 6:34 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
34 For jealousy enrages a man,
and he will not spare in the day of vengeance.

For jealousy enrages a man: Here jealousy (Heb. קִנְאָה qinah) is not the jealousy that one might think it to be. This Hebrew word is referring to righteous jealousy, an appropriate desire for what one has the right to, like the husband of the wife, who has been committing adultery with another man, such as the one from 6:25-33. Here in this context, man (Heb. גֶּבֶר geber) is not being used as any man or all men but rather in the sense of maleness or manliness of those who are rightly enraged and have a case of righteous jealousy over having to lose the affection of their wife to another man. Enrage is a word rendered for a Hebrew word (Heb. חֵמָה chemah) that literally means venom, snake poison, but also carries the meaning of furry, a feeling of intense anger, wrath, and rage. This is an extraordinarily strong feeling of displeasure, hostility, resentment, and bitterness for being wronged. This is an extension of the burning feeling, the heat that one feels when they are worked up over a great injustice, which has put them in emotional strife and turmoil.

And he will not spare in the day of vengeance: The expression will not spare means that the husband of the adulteress wife will not restrain his vengeful heart. The day of vengeance (Heb. נָקָם naqam) is coming for the man who stole his wife. The husband is going to punish, inflict retribution on this man, that is, he is going to be justified in his repaying back the harm that he himself has had to suffer. The husband is going to harm this man for the emotional injury that he has caused him, he will show him no mercy.

No modern language exactly reflects the original language vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore, at times, a literal translation of the Bible can be ambiguous or not fully convey the intended meaning of the original author. When we render an original language word into a modern language, it needs to be understood that we lose some sense of the meaning that would have been conveyed to the original audience in their language.

The same Hebrew or Greek word can have widely different meanings in different contexts. For example, the Hebrew word zaqen and the Greek word presbuteros can be translated “older man,” or “elder,” and both are sometimes used to refer to persons that are advanced in age (Gen. 18:11; Deut. 28:50; 1 Sam. 2:22; 1 Tim 5:1-2)  or to the older of two persons (older son, Lu 15:25). However, it can also apply to those holding a position of authority and responsibility in the Christian congregation (elders, 1 Tim. 5:17), in the community or a nation. It is also used in reference to the ancestors of Israel (men of old, Heb. 11:2), as well as members of the Jewish Sanhedrin (elders, Matt. 16:21), and of the twenty-four elders (heavenly beings) seated on the twenty-four thrones around the throne of God (Rev. 4:4) Clearly, the context will determine what the author meant in his usage of these terms. The translator should always seek to reflect the literal rendering of the original language in every passage, but there will be some rare exception to this rule. Here are a few of those exceptions.

Jesus’ half-brother, James, writes,

James 3:6 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
⁶ And the tongue is a fire, the world of unrighteousness; the tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the course of life, and is set on fire by Gehenna.

James 3:6 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
 6 καὶalso ἡthe γλῶσσαtongue πῦρ,fire, ὁthe κόσμοςworld τῆςof the ἀδικίαςunrighteousness ἡthe γλῶσσαtongue καθίσταταιis appointed ἐνin τοῖςthe μέλεσινmembers ἡμῶν,of us, ἡthe (one) σπιλοῦσαspotting up ὅλονwhole τὸthe σῶμαbody καὶand φλογίζουσαsetting aflame τὸνthe τροχὸνwheel/cycle τῆςof the γενέσεωςorigin καὶand φλογιζομένηbeing set aflame ὑπὸby τῆςthe γεέννης.Gehenna. 

We have several great examples of translation decisions within this one verse.

In rendering, “the world of unrighteousness,” older translations and the 1995 NASB use the outdated term iniquity, which means “grossly immoral behavior.” From the verb from which the participle James uses, “staining the whole body” we literally have spotting the whole body, somewhat ambiguous, so we should adopt the lexical rendering “stained,” “defiled,” or “corrupted.” Then we have, “the course of life,” which is literally the wheel of birth (existence, origin).  Finally, translators of the Bible should avoid rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. By simply transliterating these words it will force the reader to dig deeper for the intended meaning of the author. 

When dated terms are used (iniquity), they should be replaced with a corresponding English word (unrighteousness) of the original biblical text. The Bible translators can use such literal wording as (stain, defile, corrupt) in place of such ambiguous expressions as “spotting the whole body,” which helps the modern reader avoid confusion. When the literal rendering comes across as making no sense (the wheel of birth), it is best to provide the sense of the original word(s).  A translation of the Greek geenna is best transliterated as Gehenna. An explanation of what the translator is doing in the text should be placed in a footnote, giving the reader access to all the information. Again, these are rare exceptions to the rule that the translator should always seek to reflect the literal rendering of the original language in every passage.

Both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament render the original language words as “sleep” and “fall asleep,” which refer to a sleeping body and a dead body. Below, we can see from the context of Matthew 28:13 that this is physical sleep.

Matthew 28:13 (UASV)

κοιμωμένων koimōmenōn

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be or become asleep

Matthew 28:13 Updated American Standard Version

¹³ and said, “Say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’

However, in the verses below the context is to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true for those who are asleep in death.

Acts 7:60 (UASV)

ἐκοιμήθη ekoimēthē

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep, so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

Acts 7:60 Updated American Standard Version

⁶⁰ Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep in death.

1 Corinthians 7:39 (UASV)

κοιμηθῇ koimēthē

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep, so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

1 Corinthians 7:39 Updated American Standard Version

³⁹ A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband falls asleep in death, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 (UASV)

κοιμωμένων koimaōmenōn

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep, so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 Updated American Standard Version

¹³ But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are sleeping in death, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

Here, Paul is addressing the issue of those “who are sleeping” in death (koimaōmenōn). Koimaō is a common word for sleep that can be used as “to sleep,” “sleep,” or “fall asleep.” However, it is also used in Greek, Jewish, Christian writings, and the apostle Paul’s letters as a figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being asleep in death. Paul is not using the common sense of the word here, but rather he is using it to refer to the condition of the dead between death and the resurrection.

Psalm 13:3 (UASV)

 פֶּן־אִישַׁ֥ן הַמָּֽוֶת׃ pen-išān

Lexical: lest I sleep the death

Literal Translation: lest I sleep in death

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep, so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

Psalm 13:3 Updated American Standard Version

³ Consider and answer me, Jehovah my God;
    give light to my eyes
lest I sleep in death,

1 Kings 2:10 (UASV)

שְׁכַּ֥ב šāḵǎḇ

Lexical: lie down; rest; sleep

Literal Translation: slept

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep, so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

1 Kings 2:10 Updated American Standard Version

¹⁰ Then David slept in death with his forefathers and was buried in the city of David.

Some have argued that the dynamic equivalent thought-for-thought translations (Then David died and was buried, NLT) are conveying the idea in a more clear and immediate way, but is this really the case? Retaining the literal rendering, the metaphorical use of the word sleep is best because of the similarities that exist between physical sleep and the sleep of death. Without the literal rendering, this would be lost on the reader. Retaining the literal rendering, “slept,” and adding the phrase “in death” completes the sense in the English text.

Nevertheless, there are times when the literal translation can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. James 5:1 is translated, “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that, you may not fall under judgment.” The Greek is literally, “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let yours is to be yes, yes, and no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.” This would make little sense. Romans 12:1 is translated, “Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.” The Greek is literally, “Do not be slothful in zeal, be in the spirit boiling, serving the Lord.” This would certainly cause confusion.

A literal translation is certainly more than a word for word rendering of the original language of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The corresponding English words need to be brought over according to English grammar and syntax but the translation at the same time must be faithful to the original word or as much as possible for the author may have use word order to emphasize or convey some meaning. In most cases, the translator is simply rendering the original-language word with the same corresponding English term each time it occurs. The translator has used his good judgment in order to select words in the English translation from the lexicon within the context of the original-language text. The translator remains faithful to this literal translation philosophy unless it has been determined that the rendering will be misunderstood or misinterpreted. The translator is not tasked with making the text easy to read, but rather to make it as accurately faithful to the original as possible. The translator’s primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place. The translator’s primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. Nevertheless, extremes in the literal translation of the text just for the sake of being literal must be avoided.

Many modern-day English translations have taken the unjustifiable liberty in their choice of omitting the Father’s personal name, Jehovah, from modern translations of the Old Testament even though that name is found in ancient Bible manuscripts. Many translations replace the personal name with a title, such as “LORD.” The personal name of the Father is found thousands of times in the 1901 American Standard Version and will be retained here in the Updated American Standard Version.

TRANSLATION BARRIER

1. You have a human imperfection that will affect the translation.
2. Theological bias is one area where human imperfection comes into play.
3. The literal translation is lexical or linguistic interpretation, meaning it comes over from the original language (OL) into the receptor language (RL) word for word. For example, it does not matter whether you say Jesus went out into the wilderness or the desert, both are in the lexicon as an option and fit the context. Sadly, there are some literal translations that forsake their translation principles and go beyond what was said into the meaning of what the author meant by those words, namely, interpretation.
4. The dynamic equivalent interpretations are nothing more than mini-commentaries and the translator is giving his interpretation of what the text means, not what it says.
5. In order to have a perfect translation, you would have to have a translator or a translation committee that are not impacted by their human imperfection, who then choose the perfect rendering or better yet have a perfect rendering to choose every single time, hundreds of thousands of times.

WHAT WE HAVE IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

1. The American Standard Version (ASV) is an incredibly good translation but is still plagued by archaic words and some poor translation choices. which is why Christian Publishing House is working on the UPDATED AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (UASV) See below.
2. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is a particularly good translation.
3. The English Standard Version (ESV) is a great translation but fails many times to stay with its translation philosophy. Crossway Bible actually hired Bill Mounce to be the chief translator, and he prefers dynamic equivalent translation principles, and he overrules the committee many times. The ESV dodges its accountability by calling itself an essentially literal translation. The question is, do you want essentially the Word of God or do you want the Word of God?
4. The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) is also a great translation but is even worse than the ESV in its abandonment of their literal translation philosophy. CSB says of itself, “Developed by 100 scholars from 17 denominations, the Christian Standard Bible faithfully and accurately captures the Bible’s original meaning without compromising readability.” Imagine the theological biased conversations with 100 Bible translators from 17 denominations. The CSB calls itself the Optimal Equivalence. Equivalence is ambiguous at best. “The terms currently in fashion have the pernicious effect of privileging dynamic equivalence over the rival theory of translation. Consider the formula verbal equivalence. This would be innocuous and even helpful if it meant ‘finding the equivalent English word for the word in the original.’ The problem is that the word equivalent has already been co-opted by dynamic equivalent advocates. It carries the connotation of being a substitute for rather than corresponding to the words of the original biblical text.”—Ryken, Leland. Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach (Kindle Locations 221-225). Crossway.
5. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a particularly good translation, but it has the drawback of trying to be all things to all people by keeping the corruptions from the King James Version. It seems that The Lockman Foundation desires the retaining of King James Version Only readers more than what God’s Word said. Sadly, the NASB2020 edition has decided to dip its toes into the interpretive translation philosophy and now is trying to rationalize such a move. While one cannot know for certain what motivated such a turn of events, it seems the goal is to garner a bigger share of the market that the ESV and the CSB hold. The NASB has never tried to market and advertise to this market (semi-literal) translation readers (ESV, CSB) in order to convince them to come over to the literal side. The UASV has gone to great lengths at the beginning of this translation to draw in the semi-literal translation readers to the literal translation philosophy.
6. Every translator has biases. However, bias is only bad if you act on it. Just because one is biased, this does not mean he is wrong. It is evidence that demonstrates his biases as being bad. For example, is a grammar rule in the Gospel of John 20 times and the translator(s) render it according to the rule 19 times but on a particular verse, they violate the grammar rule because it would alter their preferred rendering that supports their doctrinal position.

UPDATED AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (UASV)

OUR PURPOSE

Our primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place. – Truth Matters!

OUR GOAL

Our primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. – Translating Truth!

Why UASV?

The translation of God’s Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is a task unlike any other and should never be taken lightly. It carries with it the heaviest responsibility: the translator renders God’s thoughts into a modern language. The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is a literal translation. What does that mean?

Removing the Outdated

• Passages with the Old English “thee’s” and “thou’s” etc. have been replaced with modern English.
• Many words and phrases that were extremely ambiguous or easily misunderstood since the 1901 ASV have been updated according to the best lexicons.
• Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been translated into correct English grammar and syntax, for easier reading. However, if the word order of the original conveyed meaning, it was kept.

More Accurate

• The last 110+ years have seen the discovering of far more manuscripts, especially the papyri, with many manuscripts dating within 100 years of the originals.
• While making more accurate translation choices, we have stayed true to the literal translation philosophy of the ASV, while other literal translations abandon the philosophy far too often.
• The translator seeks to render the Scriptures accurately, without losing what the Bible author penned by changing what the author wrote, by distorting or embellishing through imposing what the translator believes the author meant into the original text.
• Accuracy in Bible translation is being faithful to what the original author wrote (the words that he used), as opposed to going beyond into the meaning, trying to determine what the author meant by his words. The latter is the reader’s job.
• The translator uses the most reliable, accurate critical texts (e.g., WH, NA, UBS, BHS, as well as the original language texts, versions, and other sources that will help him to determine the original reading.

Why the Need for Updated Translations?

• New manuscript discoveries
• Changes in the language
• A better understanding of the original languages
• Improved insight into Bible translation

^[1] J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 166.

[2] It should be noted that the Crossway Bibles’ has names the English Standard Version (ESV) an Essentially Literal translation and the Holman Bible Publishers’ has names the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) an Optimal Equivalence translation.

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION