Questions and Answers About English Bible Translation: Exposing the Fault Lines Between Literal and Interpretive Approaches

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Introduction: Clarity Amidst Confusion

The world of English Bible translation is marked by philosophical division, doctrinal compromise in some circles, and a growing hunger among serious Bible readers for textual fidelity. One of the most damaging developments of the modern translation era is the blurring of lines between translation and interpretation—a tactic that dynamic equivalent advocates frequently use to justify rendering God’s inspired words as paraphrased ideas. This article lays bare the differences by posing and answering the most frequently raised questions, using plain language that guides the reader through the technical landscape with clarity and conviction.

1) Isn’t All Translation Interpretation?

This is the favorite slogan of dynamic equivalent proponents. The assertion is deeply misleading. In one narrow sense, yes—all translation involves lexical interpretation. That is, a translator must discern which English word corresponds most accurately to a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek term. Is the best rendering “desert” or “wilderness”? That judgment is lexical.

The King James Bible’s Hidden Agenda: How Tyndale’s Translation Was Rewritten to Empower the Church and Crown

However, dynamic equivalent translators mean something far more sweeping. They do not just substitute words; they substitute meanings, metaphors, idioms, and theological terms. That is no longer translation but interpretation—or more precisely, commentary. Replacing “anoint my head with oil” (Psalm 23:5) with “You welcome me as an honored guest” is not translation; it is an explanatory gloss.

2) What Do Dynamic Equivalent Translators Mean by “All Translation Is Interpretation”?

They mean that they reserve the right to inject their interpretive conclusions into the text. They aim to replace culturally distant, metaphor-laden language with simplified, modernized expressions. Their assumption is that the original text is too obscure or ancient to be left intact for readers to grapple with.

By doing so, they assume the role not of translators, but of theological editors. This is not how the biblical authors wrote, nor how the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. The biblical authors employed metaphor, poetic imagery, and ambiguous expressions intentionally. A faithful translator must preserve those, not reinterpret them.

3) Why Is “All Translation Is Interpretation” an Objectionable Motto?

It obscures the true and irreconcilable difference between dynamic and essentially literal approaches. It implies that all translators do the same thing—only to different degrees. That’s false.

Literal translators strive to retain the words, forms, and metaphors of the original. Dynamic translators substitute them with their interpretation of the passage’s meaning. That’s not a minor difference in method; it’s a categorical distinction.

Consider Psalm 24:4:

Literal: “He who has clean hands and a pure heart.”
CEV: “Those who do right for the right reasons.”

One is translation; the other is interpretation. The latter replaces the poetic structure with a moral paraphrase—undermining the authority and style of the inspired text.

4) Are “Dynamic Equivalence” and “Functional Equivalence” Useful Labels?

They are deeply deceptive. These terms suggest that the translator is merely finding a way to fulfill the function or effect of the original text. But the terms mask the extent of deviation.

Functional equivalence seeks to reproduce reader response—even if it means rewriting metaphors or idioms. Dynamic equivalence goes further, claiming freedom to restructure or simplify Scripture itself. For example:

Psalm 19:10: “Sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.”
The Message: “You’ll like it better than strawberries in spring.”

Such liberties are not equivalence in any meaningful sense. They are substitution and reimagination.

5) What Makes These Labels Objectionable?

Because they misrepresent what actually happens during translation. The majority of what dynamic translators do has nothing to do with equivalence at all. Instead, they:

Create colloquialized, casual English.
Erase metaphors to provide direct statements.
Add theological commentary.
Replace theological terms with simplified ones.
Simplify syntax and reduce vocabulary.
Adjust gendered terms to modern feminist preferences.

This list reflects editorial manipulation, not faithful translation. The labels “dynamic” or “functional” veil this fact behind respectable academic jargon.

6) Is an Essentially Literal Translation Just Transliteration?

Absolutely not. A transliteration simply transfers the original word into English characters—like “baruch” for Hebrew בָּרוּךְ. An essentially literal translation, by contrast, provides a clear, grammatical English rendering without departing from the actual wording.

Psalm 32:1 (literal): “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”
A transliteration: “Blessedness of forgiven of transgression, covered of sin.”

The accusation that literal translations are transliterations is not just false, it is frivolous—as it reveals a failure to understand even the basic mechanics of translation.

7) Has Linguistic Theory Made the Distinction Between “What It Says” and “What It Means” Obsolete?

No. That claim is an ideological assertion, not a linguistic fact. Meaning is certainly contextual and often multi-layered, but the distinction between a literal statement and an interpretive paraphrase is not only valid—it is essential.

Examples:

“My joy and crown” (Phil. 4:1) becomes “how happy you make me, and how proud I am of you” (GNB).
“Set a guard over my mouth” (Ps. 141:3) becomes “help me control my tongue” (NCV).

Only one of these gives you what the biblical author actually said. The other gives you what the translators think he meant. This is the heart of the issue.

8) What’s the Best Thing One Can Say About Dynamic Equivalence?

Its translators genuinely want people to understand the Bible. That is commendable. But it is a limited virtue, because their solution to the problem of difficulty is to alter the message, not preserve it.

9) Isn’t Readability a Good Enough Reason to Endorse Dynamic Equivalence?

No. Readability at the expense of accuracy is self-defeating. A translation that is easy to read but says something different from the original is not the Word of God. It is a commentary in disguise.

For example:

Luke 1:69 in the NLT: “He has sent us a mighty Savior.”
The original: “He has raised up a horn of salvation for us.”

The metaphor is erased, replaced with a theological summary. The reader has no chance to see or explore what the Bible actually says.

10) What’s the Strongest Argument Against Dynamic Equivalence?

Two points tie as the strongest objections:

1) The destabilized text: Dynamic equivalents vary widely even among themselves. For Psalm 78:33:

NLT: “He ended their lives in failure.”
ESV: “So he made their days vanish like a breath.”

Other translations say: futility, emptiness, calamity, cut short. Such diversity reflects a failure to translate faithfully and leads to confusion and instability in the biblical message.

2) The presumption against the biblical authors: Dynamic equivalent translators act as if they can communicate better than the inspired authors. Ecclesiastes 12:3 does not say “your teeth will decay”; it says “the grinders cease because they are few.” Amos 4:6 does not say “empty stomachs”; it says “cleanness of teeth.”

The authors could have said what dynamic equivalent translators insert. But they didn’t. That choice must be respected, not revised.

11) Is There Any Use for Dynamic Equivalent Translations?

Yes—but only as commentaries. They can offer interpretive suggestions, but they must not replace the literal text. A reader needs to first read what the Bible says, then consult dynamic versions to understand how it might be interpreted.

A dynamic translation is not “a good translation” when it gets an interpretation right—it’s a helpful commentary. But it remains a bad translation if it obscures what the biblical author actually wrote.

12) Can the Differences Be Illustrated At a Glance?

Absolutely. The table below summarizes the philosophical divide:

Literal Translation	Dynamic Translation
“Establish the work of our hands” (Ps. 90:17)	“Let all go well for us”
“You anoint my head with oil” (Ps. 23:5)	“You honor me… my cup overflows with blessings”
“Remove this cup from me” (Luke 22:42)	“Take away what must happen to Me”
“Put off the old self” (Col. 3:9)	“You have left your old sinful life”
“The love of God” (2 Thess. 3:5)	“God’s love”
“He has put eternity into man’s heart” (Eccl. 3:11)	“He puts questions in our minds about the past and the future”
“Rejoice, O young man…” (Eccl. 11:9)	“Young people… enjoy every minute of it”
“Ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6)	“Gave His life to set all men free”

This is not simply a stylistic issue—it is a doctrinal, exegetical, and textual fidelity issue.

Conclusion: Translation Must Not Replace Revelation

Dynamic equivalence, functional equivalence, and related philosophies have replaced translation with interpretation. They remove the inspired forms, metaphors, and grammar of the original and replace them with modern analogies, doctrinal commentary, and editorial simplification.

The only proper method of translation is the essentially literal approach, which reveres the biblical text as the very words of God, not merely the ideas of God. Letting the inspired text speak in its own terms—even when unfamiliar, poetic, or complex—is the only way to ensure that Bible readers actually receive what God said.

Dynamic equivalence has served as a commentary—but it must never be allowed to masquerade as the Word of God. A translation that is faithful to what God said is the only translation that can ever be trusted to help us understand what He meant.

You May Also Enjoy

The Foundation of Bible Translation

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).