Why Translation Philosophies Reveal a Translator’s Theology

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

$5.00

The Theology Behind the Text: What Translators Really Believe

It is naïve to suppose that all translators of the Bible approach the task from the same worldview. In fact, a careful analysis of the translation philosophies underlying the various English Bibles reveals significant differences in how translators perceive the very nature of Scripture. While many readers assume that the divergence between literal and dynamic translation models is only about linguistic method, the deeper reality is that these models embody distinct theological views of what the Bible is—and what it is not.

Few translators openly articulate these differences, but their views are revealed in the assumptions behind their methods, the editorial choices they defend, and the way they articulate their goals in translation prefaces and articles. The clearest way to uncover these divergent views is by observing what translators choose to preserve, what they choose to remove, and what they feel compelled to “correct.” In this analysis, we find that dynamic equivalent translators treat the Bible as a text that must be reshaped for a modern audience, while literal translators preserve it as the authoritative, ancient, and intentionally challenging Word of God. These are not minor differences in strategy; they are fundamental differences in doctrine.

Is the Bible Ancient or Modern?

Literal translation philosophy begins with the recognition that the Bible is an ancient book, divinely inspired and delivered in a specific historical and cultural context. Its language, idioms, metaphors, and structures are rooted in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman world. Its worldview, customs, and assumptions often differ drastically from those of modern Western societies. For a literal translator, this historical setting is not a problem to be overcome but a reality to be preserved. God did not deliver His Word in the modern era. He spoke through Moses in the fifteenth century B.C.E., through Isaiah in the eighth, through Paul in the first century C.E.—and the text bears the marks of those contexts because God intended it to.

In contrast, dynamic equivalence treats the ancientness of Scripture as a liability. By their own admission, dynamic translators aim to remove what they perceive as “barriers” between the Bible and the modern reader. These include ancient cultural customs, unfamiliar expressions, non-Western imagery, and outdated theological terms. In doing so, they inadvertently transform the Bible into a modern document, one that reflects the values, tone, and even political concerns of twenty-first-century Western culture. The text becomes “accessible,” but only by being reshaped.

Consider the bold admission in the preface to the New Century Version: “Ancient customs are often unfamiliar to modern readers.… So these are clarified either in the text or in a footnote.” This statement reveals a fundamental reorientation. Rather than guiding the reader to the ancient world, the translation reshapes the text to reflect modern assumptions. The New Living Translation likewise confesses its goal “to translate terms shrouded in history or culture in ways that can be immediately understood by the contemporary reader.” What is lost in the process is the very context in which God revealed Himself.

More than style is at stake. When Paul writes, “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (1 Cor. 16:20), he references an ancient custom. The PHILLIPS translation changes this to, “Shake hands all round as a sign of Christian love.” But Paul did not command a handshake. The meaning was embedded in the kiss, a cultural expression of familial affection and unity in the early church. Replacing that with a handshake does not “clarify”—it distorts. It modernizes a divine command and subtly communicates that cultural context is dispensable.

Literal translators reject this approach. They affirm that the Bible is, and must remain, an ancient book, full of divine content expressed in historical forms. As John H. Skilton rightly declared, “It is not in the translator’s province to lift the Bible out of its milieu. He should not try to dehistoricize it, reset it, or deculturize it.” God did not give us an abstract, context-less revelation. He chose specific languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek—rooted in the linguistic world of the time. A faithful translation preserves those forms, even when they are foreign to the modern mind.

Is the Bible a Simple or a Difficult Book?

A second area of divergence lies in the perceived difficulty of the biblical text. Dynamic equivalent translators frequently operate under the premise that the Bible is—or should be—a simple book. The assumption is that God would only communicate in clear, conversational terms understandable by all, including children or those with little formal education. This idea is reinforced by statements in translation prefaces:

“Jesus talked plainly to people.… Jesus, the master Teacher, was very careful not to give people more than they could grasp.… We are trying to re-capture that level of communication.… Jesus was able to communicate clearly, even with children.” —The Simple English Bible

But is this true? A brief survey of Jesus’ teaching shows otherwise. When asked why He spoke in parables, Jesus responded with a striking explanation: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.… This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matt. 13:11, 13). Jesus intentionally concealed meaning from the spiritually unresponsive. His sayings were layered, paradoxical, metaphorical, and often difficult.

Likewise, the epistles of Paul contain dense theological argumentation. Peter himself acknowledged this: “There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). Biblical language includes ancient idioms, poetic structures, prophetic symbolism, legal formulae, apocalyptic imagery, and theological constructs that are not readily understood on a surface reading. The Bible is not a children’s book. It is a divine book, requiring study, meditation, and faithful exposition.

Literal translators embrace this reality. They do not artificially simplify the text to fit a modern reading level. They recognize that the Bible is not easy—but that it was never meant to be. As Anthony Howard Nichols wrote, “There is no evidence that [the biblical texts] were much less [difficult] for the original readers.… They, too, had to cope with technical terminology, with thousands of OT allusions and with Hebrew loan words.” The complexity of the Bible is intrinsic to its divine origin. Simplifying the Bible is not just poor translation—it is theological betrayal.

Dynamic equivalent translators, however, seek to eliminate these difficulties. They reword metaphors, flatten theological vocabulary, and remove literary devices in order to make the Bible read more smoothly. In doing so, they do not just simplify the form—they truncate the content. The reader is protected from the complexity of the original and fed a paraphrased, filtered digest. The result is a loss not only of literary richness but of spiritual depth.

Does the Bible Need to Be Corrected?

Perhaps the most dangerous divergence in translation philosophies concerns the perceived need to “improve” or “correct” the Bible. While most translators deny explicitly that they are correcting the Word of God, their practices—and often their own words—indicate otherwise. They approach the biblical text not as perfect revelation but as a product that must be massaged into modern acceptability.

Take the following statements as representative:

“It was recognised that it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers.” —NIV Inclusive Language Edition

“Metaphorical language is often difficult for contemporary readers to understand, so at times we have chosen to translate or illuminate the metaphor.” —NLT

“In everyday speech, ‘gender generic’ or ‘inclusive’ language is used… this intention must be reflected in translation, though the English form may be very different from that of the original.” —CEV

These statements betray a lack of reverence for the inspired text. They reveal a belief that the Bible, as originally written, is insufficient—either culturally insensitive, rhetorically opaque, or intellectually unpalatable. Thus, the translator becomes not a servant of the Word, but an editor of it. The result is a Bible altered to reflect modern moral sensibilities, gender expectations, and ideological agendas. This is not translation. It is revisionism.

Literal translators reject this error. They affirm, as the preface to the Geneva Bible did, that Scripture is “the light to our paths, the key of the kingdom of heaven, our comfort in affliction… and the only food and nourishment of our souls.” The Bible does not need to be corrected, filtered, or modernized. It needs to be preserved. And only a literal approach, like that of the UASV, takes this duty seriously.

Literal translations retain masculine pronouns where the original text uses them. They preserve metaphors, even when they are unfamiliar. They uphold theological terms, even when they are not easily grasped. They do not substitute the translator’s opinion for God’s words. In short, they affirm what Scripture affirms: “The words of Jehovah are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times” (Ps. 12:6).

What Translation Really Reveals: The View of Scripture

Behind every translation philosophy lies a view of Scripture. The literal translator believes that God’s words, as recorded in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, are inspired, authoritative, and sufficient. His task is to convey those words in accurate English—not to improve them, repackage them, or adapt them to modern tastes. The dynamic equivalent translator, by contrast, sees himself as a communicator or even a curator, reshaping the Bible’s message to suit the expectations of a modern audience.

In the end, these divergent approaches are not differences in translation theory—they are differences in doctrine. One holds that God has spoken, and it is our task to preserve and obey. The other assumes that human reason must reframe that speech in ways deemed more effective or acceptable. That is not merely a methodological divide. It is a theological chasm.

You May Also Enjoy

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

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).