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

$5.00

Methodological Premises

Bible translation is a sacred task grounded in verbal, plenary inspiration. God breathed out words, not bare concepts (2 Timothy 3:16–17), and He guided the authors so that the very wording they chose communicates His will with precision (2 Peter 1:21; Matthew 5:18). Consequently, the first duty of translators is fidelity to the linguistic forms, lexical choices, and syntactic signals of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Historical-Grammatical method requires seeking the author’s intended meaning in the original historical setting and letting grammar, vocabulary, discourse structure, and canonical usage govern our decisions. The translator’s goal is to reproduce, as closely as English allows, the same information encoded by the inspired words—neither adding nor subtracting, neither softening nor intensifying. Readability is a worthy servant; accuracy is the master. Pastors, teachers, and study helps exist to bridge gaps in understanding. The text must remain Scripture, not morph into commentary. With those premises in place, the following sixteen fallacies should be rejected.

Fallacy #1 — “We Should Translate Meaning Rather Than Words.”

1. The Issue Defined

This slogan, popular among dynamic-equivalence and paraphrase advocates, suggests that translators should not be concerned with the wording of the original text but rather with the “meaning” as they perceive it. The argument goes: since readers care about what the text means, not how it was phrased, translators should feel free to restructure or even replace the wording to communicate what they believe is the “thought” behind it.

At first glance, this sounds reasonable. But this mindset overlooks how language actually works. Meaning is not an abstract substance floating free of words; meaning is communicated through specific words, grammar, and syntax chosen under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration (2 Peter 1:21). To detach “meaning” from words is to sever the very conduit God used to communicate His truth.

2. Why Words Matter in Inspiration

The Bible itself testifies to verbal inspiration. Jesus affirmed that even the smallest letter (Hebrew yodh) and stroke (serif or “tittle”) carry weight (Matthew 5:18). Paul argued from a single word—“seed” (singular, not plural)—in Galatians 3:16 to prove that the promises were fulfilled in Christ. If the Spirit intended precision at the level of singular and plural, then translators must transmit those words as faithfully as possible. To say “we translate meaning, not words” is to discount the Spirit’s care in choosing those very words.

3. How “Meaning-Based” Translation Becomes Interpretation

The danger in this approach is that it substitutes the translator’s judgment for the inspired author’s. For example:

Genesis 15:6
Literal: “And he believed Jehovah, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”
A freer rendering might say: “Abram trusted God, and God was pleased with him.”
At first glance, this seems fine, but notice: “counted as righteousness” is a theological term with immense canonical importance, appearing in Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6. Replacing it with “pleased with him” removes the link to Paul’s doctrine of justification.
Romans 3:25
Literal: “whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith.”
Some dynamic versions render: “as a sacrifice of atonement” or even “to forgive sins.”
But “propitiation” (hilastērion) carries a sacrificial nuance tied to the mercy seat and God’s wrath being satisfied. To flatten it into “forgiveness” is to alter doctrine. The “meaning” is narrowed to what the translators think is most palatable, but the precision of the inspired word is lost.

4. Idioms and the Right Use of Equivalence

It is true that idioms cannot always be translated word-for-word without distortion. For instance:

Hebrew: “his nose burned” = “he was angry.”
Greek: “lift up your eyes” = “look.”

Here, a literal rendering would confuse readers. But solving these idiomatic problems is not the same as discarding words wholesale. A careful translator seeks the closest natural equivalent in English that preserves the imagery when possible and communicates the same semantic value. The issue is not whether to ever adjust idioms, but whether adjustment becomes a pretext for paraphrase that abandons verbal fidelity.

5. The Consequences of Translating “Meaning” Instead of Words

Loss of Canonical Connections
Expressions like “fear of God,” “seed,” “sanctification,” or “in Christ” build intertextual links across Scripture. Change them to contemporary paraphrases and the reader cannot trace those threads.
Theological Dilution
Key terms (“covenant,” “propitiation,” “righteousness”) are doctrinal building blocks. Substituting easier phrases risks dismantling centuries of theological precision.
Subjectivity of Translators
What one committee calls “the meaning” may differ from another. This moves authority away from God’s words to human interpretation.
Reader Dependence on Translators
Instead of reading Scripture itself, readers absorb a layer of commentary hidden in the translation. They never see what the biblical author actually wrote, only what the translator thinks it meant.

6. Positive Example of Word-Focused Translation

The English Standard Version (ESV) aims for “essentially literal” translation. For instance:

Psalm 119:89 — “Forever, O Jehovah, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.”
A freer rendering might reduce this to “Your words last forever,” which is true but less vivid and less precise. The ESV preserves the imagery of God’s Word being “fixed” in heaven, anchoring permanence in divine sovereignty.
John 1:14 — “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
A thought-for-thought approach might say: “The Word became a human being and lived here.” But “flesh” (sarx) has deep resonance with biblical anthropology and the incarnation. “Dwelt” (eskēnōsen) recalls God’s tabernacle presence. To paraphrase these away erases deliberate theological allusions.

7. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The claim that we should translate “meaning rather than words” misunderstands the nature of communication and undermines verbal inspiration. God gave us meaning through words. Faithful translation, therefore, respects and preserves those words, reproducing them as precisely as possible in English while smoothing only where idioms or grammar demand. Anything more risks exchanging God’s inspired text for man’s commentary.

Fallacy #2 — “All Translation Is Interpretation.”

1. The Claim Explained

This slogan is often repeated in academic and popular discussions about translation. The idea is that because languages differ in structure, grammar, and vocabulary, every act of translation involves interpretation. For example, when a Greek word has multiple possible senses, the translator must “interpret” which sense to use. Thus, it is argued, translation cannot escape subjectivity—every translation is just an interpretation in another form.

At first, this observation sounds plausible. Indeed, translators do make decisions. But the slogan is dangerous because it suggests there is no clear boundary between legitimate translation decisions (which are necessary) and illegitimate interpretive intrusions (which smuggle commentary into the text). If taken uncritically, it opens the door to loose paraphrase, theological bias, and the idea that no translation can be trusted as faithful representation of God’s Word.

2. Necessary Decisions vs. Unnecessary Intrusions

There is a fundamental distinction between necessary translation choices and unnecessary interpretive additions:

Necessary translation choices are unavoidable because languages encode meaning differently. For example, Greek case endings must be expressed in English through word order or prepositions. In John 1:1, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος” must be translated “and the Word was God.” English cannot keep Greek word order without confusion (“and God was the Word”), so adjustment is required.
Unnecessary interpretive intrusions go beyond linguistic necessity, reshaping the text to reflect the translator’s theological preference. For example, in Romans 5:12:
- Literal: “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
- Paraphrase tendency: “so that death passed to all men because all inherited Adam’s guilt.”
  The second rendering inserts a doctrine (original guilt) that the Greek text does not explicitly state. That is interpretation disguised as translation.

The faithful translator recognizes where adjustments are required by grammar, and where the temptation is to overstep into commentary.

3. Scriptural Examples of the Distinction

Galatians 3:16
Paul’s argument depends on the singular “seed,” not plural “seeds.” If a translator paraphrased “seed” as “descendants,” the interpretation would contradict Paul’s inspired theological reasoning. Literal rendering preserves the inspired ambiguity that Paul later resolves.
Hebrews 2:17
Literal: “to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
Some paraphrases render: “to take away the sins of the people.” But hilaskesthai refers to propitiation—God’s wrath being satisfied. Substituting “take away” is interpretive flattening that obscures the specific sacrificial language.

4. Why This Fallacy is So Popular

There are two main reasons scholars and committees invoke the slogan “all translation is interpretation”:

Philosophical Relativism: Some argue that since perfect equivalence is impossible, all translations are subjective and thus equally valid. This levels the field between faithful renderings and paraphrases, giving legitimacy to looser versions.
Translator Convenience: If all translation is interpretation, then paraphrasing is not an error but simply a different choice. This gives cover to committees that want to domesticate Scripture to modern audiences.

But this reasoning is flawed. While perfect word-for-word equivalence is not possible in every case, close formal equivalence is not only possible but necessary for fidelity. The difficulty of translation is not license for distortion.

5. The Biblical View of Translation and Precision

The Bible itself assumes that translation can faithfully convey God’s Word without collapsing into mere interpretation. Consider:

Nehemiah 8:8 — Ezra and the Levites “read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” Note the distinction: the text was read (translation/transmission), and then the teachers explained it (interpretation). Translation was not equated with interpretation; both were necessary but separate.
Septuagint Usage in the New Testament — The apostles often quote the Greek Septuagint as authoritative Scripture (e.g., Hebrews 10:5 citing Psalm 40:6 LXX). This demonstrates confidence that translation can transmit God’s Word faithfully, not merely as interpretation but as Scripture itself.

6. Practical Examples of the Fallacy

John 3:16
Literal: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…”
Paraphrase (Good News Bible): “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son…”
The difference between “so loved” (houtōs) and “loved so much” is subtle but significant. The Greek stresses the manner of God’s love (demonstrated in giving His Son), not merely the intensity. The paraphrase reflects interpretation, not translation.
Romans 8:5
Literal: “those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh.”
Some dynamic versions render: “people who are ruled by their desires think only of themselves.” This is interpretation that substitutes “flesh” with “desires” and “set their minds” with “think only of themselves.” The canonical term “flesh” (sarx) with all its theological significance is erased.

7. The Right Balance

Faithful translation acknowledges that:

Translation always involves decisions.
But not all decisions are interpretive in the sense of commentary.
The translator’s duty is to minimize interpretation, preserve authorial signals, and leave exegesis to pastors, teachers, and the reader guided by the Word.

The more a translation claims “all translation is interpretation,” the freer it feels to insert theology, smooth over difficulties, and soften offense. The more it recognizes the distinction between translation and interpretation, the closer it stays to verbal inspiration.

Fallacy #3 — “Readability Is the Ultimate Goal of Translation.”

1. The Claim Defined

This fallacy is built on the assumption that the primary aim of Bible translation is to produce a smooth, easily understandable text in the receptor language. Advocates often argue that since the Bible is meant for all people, it should be as simple and natural as possible, even if that means paraphrasing difficult expressions or removing ancient terminology. Readability, they claim, should be the overriding concern.

The problem is not that readability is unimportant—it is. A translation must be comprehensible, not cryptic or needlessly archaic. But when readability is elevated above accuracy, the inspired words are reshaped to fit cultural comfort rather than preserved for faithful understanding. The question is not whether readability matters, but whether it is supreme. And Scripture itself shows that it is not.

2. The Nature of Biblical Difficulty

The Bible is not an ordinary book. Its subject matter includes theology, prophecy, divine law, poetry, and apocalyptic visions. Even in its original languages, readers encountered difficulty. Peter acknowledged that Paul’s letters contain “some things hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). If difficulty existed in the inspired Greek text, no translation can—or should—completely erase that difficulty. To do so risks removing theological depth.

Example:

Romans 3:25 — Paul speaks of Christ as the hilastērion (“propitiation/atoning sacrifice”). The term is dense, tying together the mercy seat in the tabernacle (Exodus 25:17–22) and the satisfaction of God’s wrath. To replace this with “the means by which God forgives us” may be easier to read, but it strips away the sacrificial and judicial imagery Paul deliberately used. The “difficulty” is part of the richness.

3. Proper Readability vs. Illegitimate Simplification

There are two categories of difficulty:

Translator-Created Difficulty
Poorly constructed English, clumsy word order, or unnecessary archaisms (e.g., “thee,” “thou,” “sheweth”) can hinder understanding. This should be removed. For instance, rendering 1 John 2:1 as “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” is clear, while “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just one” would sound awkward in modern English. Editing for clarity is necessary.
Inspired Difficulty
When the subject matter itself is complex or when an ancient concept is foreign to modern readers, the translator should not erase that difficulty. Terms like “covenant,” “atonement,” “sanctification,” or “firstfruits” are challenging precisely because they carry ancient theological weight. Replacing them with casual modern equivalents not only oversimplifies but misrepresents. The difficulty should remain for the reader to wrestle with, under guidance from teaching and study.

4. Consequences of Prioritizing Readability Above Accuracy

Loss of Historical Context
Recasting the text in smooth modern idioms can sever the reader from the biblical world. For example, replacing “talents” (a weight of money) with “large sums of money” may simplify, but it hides the historical unit and prevents readers from grappling with the economic reality of the parable (Matthew 25:14–30).
Doctrinal Dilution
Simplifying theological terms often weakens doctrine. Substituting “sacrifice” for “propitiation” makes Christ’s work sound generic rather than specific. Substituting “agreement” for “covenant” strips away the covenantal framework of Scripture.
Short-Term Clarity, Long-Term Confusion
Readability-based translations date themselves quickly because idioms and popular phrases shift with culture. A version rendered into the idioms of the 1970s will sound strange in the 2020s, while a faithful translation of inspired terminology remains stable.

5. Illustrations of the Problem

Psalm 23:1
Literal: “Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.”
Dynamic/Readability-driven: “The Lord is my shepherd; I have everything I need.”
The latter sounds smoother, but “shall not want” means more than mere provision; it signals complete sufficiency and contentment under divine care. The theological breadth narrows when readability dominates.
Matthew 5:3
Literal: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Some paraphrases render: “Happy are those who know they need God.”
While interpretively close, the rendering substitutes “happy” for “blessed,” collapsing covenantal blessing into a fleeting emotion. Readability comes at the cost of depth.

6. The Biblical Pattern of Teaching Through Difficulty

Scripture never promises that every passage will be instantly accessible without study. Instead, it commands God’s people to meditate (Joshua 1:8), to rightly handle the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), and to grow from “milk” to “solid food” (Hebrews 5:12–14). If a translation erases every difficulty, it prevents readers from experiencing this maturing process.

The role of the pastor, teacher, or study aid is to bridge gaps, not the translator’s rewriting. A faithful translation preserves what the author said; expositors explain what it means.

7. Positive Example of Balance

The English Standard Version (ESV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) aim to balance clarity and precision. They use modern English syntax and vocabulary, yet they retain key theological terms like “sanctification,” “propitiation,” and “covenant.” This gives readers the inspired wording while allowing comprehension in good English. Readability is achieved without distortion.

By contrast, a paraphrase like The Living Bible (TLB) prioritizes readability to the point of inserting interpretive expansions, blurring the line between text and commentary. While easier to read, it ceases to function as Scripture itself and becomes a commentary disguised as a translation.

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

Readability is important but not supreme. When translators make smoothness their highest goal, they risk diluting doctrine, erasing historical context, and misrepresenting God’s inspired words. The proper hierarchy is this: accuracy first, clarity second, readability third. A faithful translation will be readable where possible but never at the expense of inspired terminology or theological precision. The Bible was not written to sound like modern speech—it was written to communicate God’s truth across the ages. Our task is to preserve that, not replace it with ease.

Fallacy #4 — “The Important Question Is How We Would Say It.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy arises from the belief that translation should be guided primarily by the question: “How would we express this today?” In other words, if the inspired author had lived in our time, how would he phrase the same thought in modern English idioms? Translators who adopt this principle often feel free to replace biblical metaphors, restructure theological terms, or substitute cultural imagery with contemporary equivalents.

While this may seem like a practical way to make Scripture relatable, it actually undermines the historical and covenantal rootedness of God’s Word. The Bible was not written in the twenty-first century. God inspired His Word within the cultural, linguistic, and literary frameworks of ancient Israel and the Greco-Roman world. Our duty is not to re-create what Paul or Moses might have said if they lived today, but to transmit what they actually wrote under divine inspiration.

2. The Problem with “How We Would Say It”

The danger of this fallacy is twofold:

Speculative Reconstruction
It assumes we can accurately guess how biblical writers would speak in a modern context. But this is an impossible task. Would Paul use the language of democracy, psychology, or economics to rephrase justification? Would Jesus employ digital metaphors about the internet instead of agrarian parables? Such speculation drifts into fiction, not translation.
Loss of Inspired Texture
The wording of Scripture is deliberate. The shepherd imagery of Psalm 23, the vineyard parables of Jesus, the covenant language of Deuteronomy, and the apocalyptic visions of Daniel and Revelation—all are rooted in ancient settings. These were not arbitrary; God revealed Himself in that cultural world. To replace them with “how we would say it today” removes the very textures by which God chose to communicate.

3. Biblical Examples

John 1:14
Literal: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Some modern paraphrases: “The Word became a human being and moved into our neighborhood.”
While catchy, “moved into our neighborhood” replaces eskēnōsen (“tabernacled”) with a contemporary idiom that strips away the Old Testament allusion to God’s presence in the tabernacle. What John actually wrote ties Christ’s incarnation to God’s dwelling with Israel in the wilderness. To say it “how we would say it” dissolves this theological link.
Psalm 119:105
Literal: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
A paraphrase might read: “Your word is like a flashlight that guides me.”
This misses the poetic resonance of ancient lamps and Israel’s wilderness imagery. The original metaphor is not outdated; it continues to carry theological significance. Replacing it with a modern gadget flattens the meaning.

4. How this Fallacy Distorts Theology

Erasure of Key Terms
Translating “covenant” as “agreement” because “that’s how we would say it” reduces a covenant’s solemn, oath-bound character to a mere business contract.
Over-Domestication of Imagery
Jesus’ parables draw from agriculture, shepherding, and temple life. Recasting them in suburban metaphors risks changing their force. A “lost sheep” is not the same as a “lost puppy,” even if the latter sounds more relatable.
Subjectivity in Translation
If the rule is “how we would say it,” every generation will rewrite the Bible according to its own idioms, leading to instability and loss of continuity. Scripture becomes a mirror of cultural trends rather than a fixed standard.

5. Why Preserving the Ancient Voice Matters

God’s revelation is incarnational: He spoke in real languages, to real people, in real settings. Part of the task of Scripture is to draw modern readers into that world, not to erase it. The metaphors, idioms, and figures chosen by Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, and John are not accidents—they are the divinely chosen vehicles of truth.

When translators preserve these, they train readers to enter the biblical world. When they replace them with modern substitutes, they teach readers that God’s Word is endlessly malleable and culturally negotiable.

6. Proper Translation Principles

Faithful Equivalence, Not Reinvention
Where idioms would be nonsensical if translated literally (e.g., Hebrew “his nose burned”), translators must find the nearest natural equivalent (“he became angry”). But where imagery carries theological weight, it should be preserved, even if it requires effort from the reader.
Explanation Belongs in Notes, Not Text
Translators should not erase “tabernacle” in John 1:14 but preserve it. If clarification is needed, a note can explain its background. The inspired text remains intact, and the reader is invited into Scripture’s world rather than given a substitute.

7. Positive Example of Fidelity

1 Corinthians 11:24
Literal: “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Some paraphrases: “This bread means my body; eat it to remember me.”
The paraphrase reduces covenantal sacrificial language to mere symbolism. The literal rendering, while still requiring teaching, preserves Christ’s words exactly as Paul recorded them.

By not asking “how would we say it today?” but rather “what did the inspired author actually say, and how can that be faithfully expressed in English?” translators honor the sacredness of Scripture.

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

Asking “how we would say it” invites speculation, subjectivity, and domestication of Scripture. The Bible is not ours to modernize; it is God’s Word to transmit. Translators are not tasked with imagining Paul’s voice in the 21st century but with preserving his Spirit-inspired words from the 1st century. Our role is to enter the biblical world, not to drag the Bible into ours.

Fallacy #5 — “Koiné Greek Was Uniformly Colloquial.”

1. The Claim Defined

Some advocates of dynamic translation argue that since the New Testament was written in Koiné Greek—the so-called “common Greek” of the first century—it must have been essentially “street language” or everyday conversational speech. On this assumption, they conclude that translations should always sound casual, colloquial, and simple, as if the apostles were writing emails or text messages.

This fallacy oversimplifies both language history and the evidence of the New Testament. Koiné Greek does not mean “slang” or “informal.” It was the language used broadly across the Greco-Roman world, but within it, writers employed a wide spectrum of registers—from ordinary conversational style to elevated literary and rhetorical prose. To treat the entire New Testament as if it were written in casual “marketplace Greek” is to ignore the variety of styles God used through His inspired authors.

2. Understanding Koiné Greek

The term koinē means “common” or “shared,” as opposed to the highly stylized Attic dialect of earlier classical Athens. It arose after Alexander the Great’s conquests (4th century B.C.E.) as a lingua franca across the Hellenistic world.

It was “common” in that it was widely used.
But “common” did not mean low quality, slang, or without literary refinement.
Just as modern English includes both casual speech (“Hey, what’s up?”) and formal literature (“Whereas the undersigned do hereby covenant…”), so too koinē encompassed both conversational and elevated styles.

Thus, it is simplistic—and false—to claim that the entire New Testament was written in one flat, colloquial register.

3. Stylistic Range Within the New Testament

The New Testament itself demonstrates multiple registers of koinē Greek:

Elevated Literary Style
- Luke 1:1–4 — Luke’s prologue is modeled after classical historiographical introductions, with complex sentence structure and refined vocabulary. It would not be mistaken for “street Greek.”
- Hebrews — The epistle exhibits some of the finest Greek in the New Testament, with polished syntax and rhetorical sophistication.
Everyday Letter Style
- Philemon — A warm personal letter with simple, relational phrasing, reflecting ordinary correspondence.
Semitic Influence
- Revelation — Strong Semitic patterns underlie the Greek, creating a unique and sometimes awkward style that reflects John’s Jewish prophetic background.
Blended Registers
- Paul’s Epistles — Paul ranges from tightly reasoned theological argument (Romans 5–8) to rapid, emotional appeals (Galatians 1). His Greek is not uniformly colloquial but tailored to occasion and audience.

This range shows that God employed a diversity of voices and styles in inspiring Scripture. Flattening all of this into casual, colloquial English betrays the text.

4. Examples of Translation Distortion

When translators assume koinē Greek was always colloquial, they often downgrade formal passages into overly casual English:

Luke 1:1–4
Literal (ESV): “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us… it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you…”
Casual paraphrase: “Dear Theophilus, lots of people have tried to write this story, and I thought I’d give it a shot too…”
The latter trivializes Luke’s carefully structured introduction, making him sound careless rather than deliberate.
Hebrews 1:1–2
Literal: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”
Casual rendering: “In the past God spoke through prophets, but now He talks to us through His Son.”
The paraphrase reduces solemnity to conversational brevity. The grandeur of the contrast between eras (“long ago… in these last days”) is lost.

5. Why the Fallacy Persists

Misunderstanding of “Koiné” — Because it means “common,” some assume it was crude or simplistic. But it only meant shared language, not lack of refinement.
Modern Reader-Centered Philosophy — If the New Testament was supposedly all “ordinary speech,” then translators feel justified in reshaping it into the most casual forms of English today.
Publishing Pressure — Publishers want Bibles that read smoothly for modern audiences, so colloquialization becomes a selling point.

But the fallacy ignores the evidence: New Testament Greek is not uniform, and much of it intentionally retains formality, solemnity, or literary resonance.

6. Implications for Translation

Preserve Stylistic Variety — Where the Greek is formal, English should be formal. Where the Greek is simple, English should be simple. The translator should mirror the author’s register, not flatten everything into casual speech.
Honor Theological Weight — Words like “sanctification,” “covenant,” or “propitiation” are not casual terms. Replacing them with everyday glosses undermines their biblical force.
Teach, Don’t Simplify Away — Readers can learn to handle both simple and formal registers of Scripture. It is not the translator’s role to erase variety for convenience.

7. Positive Example of Faithfulness

Luke 1:1–4 (NASB/ESV) preserves Luke’s formal style, showing the careful historian at work.
Hebrews 1:1–2 (NASB) preserves the grandeur of the opening contrast.
Meanwhile, the Living Bible or Message flattens these passages into ordinary speech, stripping them of rhetorical and theological gravity.

Faithful translation reflects the full spectrum of voices God inspired, not a single casual voice imposed on the entire New Testament.

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The fallacy that “Koiné Greek was uniformly colloquial” misrepresents both the linguistic evidence and the inspired diversity of Scripture. The New Testament is not written in one register; it ranges from formal historiography to personal notes, from lofty theology to prophetic exhortation. Translators must respect these differences rather than force them all into casual English. God inspired His Word in varied voices—our task is to preserve that variety, not erase it.

Fallacy #6 — “If the Biblical Writers Were Living Today…”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy underlies many modern paraphrases and dynamic-equivalence versions. It argues that the goal of translation should not be to render what the authors actually wrote, but rather to reimagine what they would have said if they lived in our modern world. One preface to a popular translation even states that its purpose is to “present Paul’s message in words that he himself would use if he were writing for you and me today.”

At first glance, this sounds like a helpful way to bridge cultures. But the claim is presumptuous. Translators are not inspired prophets or apostles. They do not know how Paul would phrase his letters in the twenty-first century, nor are they authorized to rewrite revelation in a new form. Their duty is to transmit what Paul actually wrote under inspiration of the Spirit, not what he might hypothetically say if transported into our era.

2. Why This Approach is Problematic

It Is Speculative and Subjective
No one can know what words Moses or Paul would choose in a modern setting. The attempt to guess turns translators into co-authors rather than servants of the text.
It Replaces Revelation with Imagination
God’s Word was given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. That is His chosen medium of revelation. To replace it with speculation about “what they would say today” risks supplanting God’s inspired text with human creativity.
It Leads to Cultural Conformity
Translators often project contemporary concerns into the text—psychological categories, egalitarian language, therapeutic metaphors, or political idioms. The result is not the Bible, but a Bible-shaped reflection of modern values.

3. Biblical Examples of the Issue

Galatians 2:16
Literal: “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.”
Paraphrase tendency: “a person is put right with God by trusting Jesus, not by obeying Jewish rules.”
This may sound clear, but “works of the law” is more than “Jewish rules.” It is covenantal obedience under Moses, contrasted with justification through faith in Christ. The paraphrase redefines Paul’s theology in modern terms.
Psalm 23:1
Literal: “Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.”
A paraphrase shaped by “if David were writing today” might say: “The Lord is my coach; he gives me everything I need.”
But “shepherd” is not interchangeable with “coach.” The shepherd imagery ties directly to Israel’s pastoral world and to messianic prophecy (Ezekiel 34; John 10). Substituting a modern role destroys those connections.

4. Historical and Theological Consequences

Throughout church history, the church has recognized the words themselves as inspired. The Reformers, for example, insisted on returning to the Hebrew and Greek precisely because the inspired wording—not imagined modern equivalents—was the foundation of doctrine.

Jesus grounded His argument in Matthew 22:32 on the tense of a verb (“I am the God of Abraham…”).
Paul in Galatians 3:16 built doctrine on the number of a noun (“seed,” not “seeds”).

If meaning can be divorced from wording, these inspired arguments collapse. Speculation about what the writers would say today ignores how seriously Scripture itself treats words.

5. Case Study: John 1:14

Literal: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Preserves the incarnational term sarx (“flesh”) and the allusion to tabernacling (eskēnōsen).
Paraphrase: “The Word became a human and moved into our neighborhood.”
Sounds contemporary, but loses the theological weight of “flesh” (Christ taking human mortality) and “tabernacled” (God’s presence among His people).

By imagining “how John would say it today,” the translation erases the inspired metaphors God chose.

6. Why God Gave His Word in Ancient Form

Some argue: “But wouldn’t God want His Word in the language people speak today?” The answer is: He did—in the languages people spoke then. God delivered His Word in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4), in specific tongues and contexts. He intended His people across the ages to wrestle with those words, study them, and grow in understanding through faithful teaching.

The task of translation is not to update revelation but to transmit it into another language as accurately as possible. Readers can—and must—learn the ancient terms, settings, and metaphors. This is part of discipleship.

7. The Proper Role of Translation

Faithful translation:

Preserves the inspired words as closely as possible.
Uses clear, modern English grammar to communicate them accurately.
Provides footnotes, glossaries, and helps where ancient terms need explanation.

Unfaithful translation:

Speculates about what Paul, Isaiah, or John “would say today.”
Substitutes modern idioms for ancient imagery.
Erases theological depth for the sake of relatability.

The difference is the line between fidelity and presumption.

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The fallacy of asking “If the biblical writers were living today, how would they say this?” undermines the authority of Scripture by turning translation into speculation. We are not authorized to rewrite God’s Word for a new age but to render it faithfully in ours. Translation must preserve what God actually gave, not what we imagine He might have given in another setting.

Fallacy #7 — “Any Difficulty in Reading the Bible Is the Fault of the Translation.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy assumes that when readers encounter passages they find hard to understand, the problem must lie in the translation itself. Advocates of dynamic-equivalence or paraphrase often argue that the solution to “difficult” passages is to rewrite them in smoother, simpler, more contemporary language. If people struggle with Paul’s dense theology or the prophets’ imagery, it must mean the translators failed to make it clear.

While translation can introduce unnecessary difficulties (through poor English, archaic style, or awkward wording), not all difficulty stems from the translator. Much of it is inherent in the subject matter itself. Scripture contains profound truths, foreign cultural contexts, and complex theological concepts. To erase all such difficulty in the name of readability is to falsify the inspired text.

2. The Biblical Expectation of Difficulty

The Bible itself anticipates that some portions will not be instantly clear:

2 Peter 3:16 — Peter admits that Paul’s letters contain “some things hard to understand.” This was true for Greek-speaking readers in the first century, so difficulty is not a translation artifact.
Proverbs 2:4–5 — Wisdom is described as treasure that must be sought diligently, not as something instantly grasped.
Hebrews 5:11–14 — Some teachings are “hard to explain” and require maturity to grasp.

If inspired Scripture acknowledges its own depth and difficulty, it is wrong to assume translation alone is to blame when readers struggle.

3. Types of Difficulty

We must distinguish between translation-created difficulty and inspired difficulty:

Translation-Created Difficulty
- Awkward, unnatural English (e.g., “sheweth” or “suffer the little children”).
- Archaic forms that no longer communicate (e.g., “peradventure,” “concupiscence”).
- Poorly chosen word order that confuses English readers.
  These problems should be corrected by careful, modern, but faithful translation.
Inspired Difficulty
- Theological density (Romans 9–11).
- Apocalyptic imagery (Daniel, Revelation).
- Foreign cultural elements (Levitical sacrifices, ancient measurements, genealogies).
  These are not translation defects. They are features of divine revelation. God chose to communicate truth in these ways, and we must preserve them.

4. Examples of Misplaced Blame

Romans 5:12
Literal: “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
Many readers find Paul’s logic difficult. Some paraphrases “fix” this by inserting interpretations: “Everyone died because they all inherited Adam’s guilt.” This is not what Paul wrote; it is an interpretive gloss. The “difficulty” belonged to Paul’s argument, not the translation.
Revelation 21:2
Literal: “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”
Some readers struggle with apocalyptic imagery. A paraphrase might render: “God’s people were ready, like a bride on her wedding day.” This shifts the vision into mere symbolism and strips away its prophetic imagery. Again, the problem is not the translation but the complexity of Revelation’s genre.

5. Why Difficulty Is Necessary

To Drive Readers to Study
Passages that puzzle us push us to meditate, compare Scripture with Scripture, and seek teaching. This is part of God’s design (Joshua 1:8).
To Preserve Theological Precision
Many doctrines rest on words and structures that require effort to understand. “Justification,” “sanctification,” “propitiation” are not instantly transparent to modern readers, but they are essential to sound doctrine.
To Distinguish Scripture from Commentary
If translators remove all difficulty, they are not translating but paraphrasing. The text becomes commentary—what the translators think it means—rather than God’s actual words.

6. Positive vs. Negative Approaches

Faithful Approach: Retain the inspired structure and vocabulary, smoothing only where necessary for English clarity. Provide footnotes, glossaries, and teaching aids to help readers.
Unfaithful Approach: Rewrite or oversimplify difficult texts to make them instantly digestible. This erases depth and misleads readers.

Example:

Hebrews 2:17 — “to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (ESV/NASB).
Dynamic rendering: “to take away the sins of the people.”
The latter removes the sacrificial nuance of propitiation. Easier to read, yes, but theologically impoverished.

7. Why This Fallacy Appeals to Modern Readers

Consumer Mentality — Readers expect instant understanding, as with news or novels.
Educational Laziness — Study is replaced with demand for immediate clarity.
Publisher Marketing — Easy-reading Bibles sell widely because they promise accessibility.

But God never promised that His Word would always be simple; He promised it would be true, sufficient, and life-giving.

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

Not all difficulty in reading the Bible is the translator’s fault. Some arises from language choices, but much of it belongs to the depth of God’s revelation. The proper task of translation is to remove obstacles created by English while faithfully preserving the inherent difficulty of the inspired text. Readers, pastors, and teachers must then labor to understand. To deny this truth is to demand a domesticated Bible, easier to read but weaker in power.

Fallacy #8 — “The Bible Must Be Translated into Modern Idioms to Be Understandable.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy assumes that ancient expressions, metaphors, and cultural references in the Bible are inherently inaccessible to modern readers. Advocates argue that translators should replace these with familiar contemporary idioms and phrases so that Scripture sounds natural and relatable. For example, instead of “gird up the loins of your mind” (1 Peter 1:13), they may substitute “prepare your minds for action” or even “roll up your sleeves.”

The reasoning is: “Since people today don’t talk about girding loins, we must modernize or the text won’t make sense.” But this claim underestimates readers, dismisses their ability to learn, and undermines the theological and cultural richness embedded in biblical language. It assumes that God’s revelation must be domesticated to modern speech patterns rather than allowing readers to enter the biblical world.

2. Why Ancient Idioms Should Not Be Erased

Inspired Language is Historical, Not Hypothetical
God chose to reveal Himself in the languages of ancient Israel and the Greco-Roman world, embedding His truth in real history and culture. To replace those idioms with modern ones is to exchange the setting God chose for one we imagine.
Idioms Carry Theological Weight
Biblical idioms are not just colorful expressions—they often convey theological depth. “Gird up the loins of your mind” communicates readiness for action, drawing on imagery of ancient dress and warfare. Replacing it with “get ready” conveys only the surface, not the cultural resonance.
Readers Can Learn
Readers are capable of grasping ancient idioms through study, teaching, and explanatory notes. Just as they learn words like “atonement” or “sanctification,” they can also learn idioms like “girding loins” or “hardening the heart.”

3. Examples of How Idioms Are Mishandled

1 Peter 1:13
Literal: “gird up the loins of your mind.”
Paraphrase: “roll up your sleeves.”
Problem: The paraphrase trivializes the image. Peter was not using a casual workplace metaphor but an ancient image of readiness drawn from Exodus (Israel ate the Passover with loins girded, Exodus 12:11). Erasing this idiom severs Peter’s words from their Old Testament allusion.
Psalm 23:5
Literal: “You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.”
Modernized paraphrase: “You welcome me and fill my plate.”
Problem: The idiom of anointing conveys divine blessing, hospitality, and consecration. Reducing it to “filling a plate” misses covenantal and messianic dimensions.
Matthew 5:15
Literal: “nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand.”
Modernized paraphrase: “You don’t turn on a light and then cover it with a bowl.”
Problem: Substituting “turn on a light” for “light a lamp” may be familiar, but it strips away the ancient imagery of oil lamps—an important detail in the biblical world.

4. Why Modern Idioms Are Dangerous

They Are Culturally Local
An idiom that makes sense in one modern culture may be confusing in another. “Roll up your sleeves” works in the West, but in cultures where sleeves are not a common feature of dress, it is meaningless. Ancient idioms, by contrast, are universally teachable through study.
They Expire Quickly
Modern idioms often age badly. A translation loaded with expressions from the 1970s or 1990s soon sounds dated. The biblical text, however, remains timeless if its own idioms are preserved.
They Risk Theological Distortion
Many idioms connect to covenant life, worship, or prophetic imagery. Replacing them with secular idioms weakens their force and shifts the theological message.

5. Positive Approach: Preserve, Then Explain

Faithful translation should:

Preserve the original idiom wherever possible, even if unfamiliar.
Provide a footnote or marginal note explaining the image.
Allow teaching and preaching to unpack meaning.

Example:

1 Peter 1:13 (ESV): “Therefore, preparing your minds for action [Greek: girding up the loins of your mind]…”
Here the ESV gives a natural rendering while still noting the original idiom. This balances clarity with fidelity.

6. Why This Fallacy Appeals to Modern Translators

Fear of Reader Confusion — They assume readers cannot learn, so they lower the text instead of raising the reader.
Marketing Pressure — Bibles advertised as “easy-to-read” sell better.
Cultural Accommodation — Some translators want Scripture to feel “relevant” rather than faithfully ancient.

But Scripture was not given to echo modern culture; it was given to challenge and transform it.

7. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The claim that “the Bible must be translated into modern idioms to be understandable” is false. Ancient idioms belong to God’s inspired Word and must be preserved. Readers should be invited into the world of Scripture, not given a text recast in the clichés of their culture. Footnotes, teaching, and study aids can help bridge the gap—but the text itself must retain the imagery, metaphors, and idioms God chose to inspire.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Fallacy #9 — “Literal Translations Are Too Rigid and Wooden, Making Them Unreadable.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy argues that literal, word-for-word translations produce awkward English that alienates readers. The accusation is that such translations are “wooden”—stiff, unnatural, and clumsy—and therefore unsuitable for modern audiences. Advocates of dynamic-equivalence and paraphrase insist that “smoothness” and “naturalness” should be prioritized, even at the expense of close alignment with the original wording.

But this claim is misleading. While literal translations may require slightly more effort from readers, they are far from unreadable. In fact, they protect precision and preserve the inspired wording. Readability should be sought—but not at the cost of accuracy. When “smoothness” is elevated above fidelity, the inspired words of God are replaced with the translator’s interpretation.

2. Why the Charge of “Wooden” Translation Is Misapplied

Theological Precision Requires Accuracy
Words like “propitiation,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and “covenant” are not everyday English, but they are theologically indispensable. Critics call such terms “wooden,” but in reality, they are precise. To substitute them with simpler but broader terms risks losing doctrinal clarity.
Biblical Style Is Varied and Sometimes Unpolished
Not all Scripture is meant to sound like polished English literature. Mark’s Greek is often blunt and direct; John’s Gospel is simple in vocabulary but profound in meaning; Hebrews is rhetorically elevated. To reproduce these qualities in English sometimes means retaining unusual patterns. “Wooden” is not a flaw if it reflects the inspired author’s voice.
“Wooden” Is Often Just “Faithful”
When a literal translation maintains repeated words or awkward shifts that exist in the original, it is not “bad English”—it is accurate English. Readers may need to slow down, but the reward is encountering the text as God gave it, not as smoothed over by a committee.

3. Examples of the Charge vs. Reality

Romans 3:25
Literal: “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”
Dynamic: “For God sent Christ Jesus to take the punishment for our sins.”
The dynamic rendering may be smoother, but it loses the precise sacrificial imagery of hilastērion. The so-called “wooden” word propitiation is not awkward—it is exact.
Ephesians 1:7
Literal: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses.”
Dynamic: “Through Christ we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven.”
The dynamic rendering removes the theological anchor “through his blood.” Literal translation preserves it, even if it sounds more formal.
Psalm 23:1
Literal: “Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want.”
Dynamic: “The Lord is my shepherd; I have everything I need.”
The dynamic is smoother, but “I shall not want” captures a stronger nuance: absolute sufficiency and contentment under God’s care, not just having “enough.”

4. What True Unreadability Looks Like

There is a legitimate distinction to make:

A translation that slavishly reproduces Greek or Hebrew word order without regard for English grammar (e.g., “and it was happening, in the going of him”) is unreadable.
Faithful literal translations like NASB, ESV, or UASV, however, balance accuracy with readable English. They preserve the structure and vocabulary of the original while still functioning as proper English.

Thus, the claim that literal translations are inherently “wooden” is a caricature. They may demand more thought, but they are not unreadable.

5. Why the “Readable First” Mentality Is Dangerous

It Promotes Theological Shallowing
Smooth paraphrases reduce depth, removing key biblical terms.
It Conditions Readers for Ease Over Accuracy
Readers begin expecting instant clarity, losing patience for study.
It Creates Doctrinal Drift
Generations raised on paraphrased Bibles may never encounter the exact wording God inspired, and so doctrines lose their textual anchors.

6. The Biblical Expectation

Scripture itself assumes that effort will be required to understand it. Joshua 1:8 calls Israel to meditate on the law day and night. Psalm 119 is filled with calls to study, ponder, and keep God’s Word. Paul exhorted Timothy to “rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). None of these suggest Scripture should be reduced to casual speech for instant comprehension.

7. Positive Example: Balancing Accuracy and Clarity

NASB (1995/2020) and ESV demonstrate that a translation can be essentially literal yet readable. They are formal enough to preserve inspired wording, but modern enough to avoid archaic or awkward English.
Paraphrases like The Message or Good News Bible aim for readability at all costs but produce commentary rather than Scripture. They replace God’s exact words with smooth approximations, forfeiting accuracy.

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

Literal translations are not “too rigid and wooden.” They are careful, precise, and faithful to the inspired words. Difficulty in reading does not equal failure in translation—it often reflects the richness of God’s Word. The true task of translation is not to eliminate effort but to faithfully transmit God’s words into another language. Readers must adjust themselves to Scripture; Scripture must not be reshaped to suit the impatience of readers.

Fallacy #10 — “The Translator’s Job Is to Convey the ‘Thought’ or ‘Spirit’ of the Text, Not the Exact Words.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy is one of the most common arguments used to defend dynamic-equivalence and paraphrase translations. Advocates argue that since languages differ, the translator should not focus on the words themselves but on the “thought” or even the “spirit” behind them. The translator’s job, they claim, is to capture the general intent of the passage and then render it in whatever modern words or idioms best communicate that intent.

But this misunderstands the nature of biblical inspiration. The Bible is not merely a collection of inspired “ideas.” It is verbal plenary inspiration—God breathed out words (2 Timothy 3:16), not vague concepts. The Spirit moved the prophets and apostles to choose precise words (2 Peter 1:21). Thoughts and “spirit” cannot be separated from the very words that carry them. To dismiss the words in favor of an elusive “spirit” is to cut off the anchor that grounds doctrine in inspired revelation.

2. The Biblical Emphasis on Words

Scripture itself emphasizes that meaning is inseparably tied to words:

Deuteronomy 4:2 — “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it.”
Matthew 5:18 — Jesus affirmed that not “an iota, not a dot” (small details of written words) will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Galatians 3:16 — Paul builds an entire theological argument on the singular “seed” versus plural “seeds.”

These passages show that God intends precision at the verbal level. To translate “thoughts” apart from words is to neglect the very vehicle of inspiration.

3. How This Fallacy Warps Translation

When translators prioritize “thought” or “spirit” instead of words, they inevitably insert their own interpretation.

Romans 5:1
Literal: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Paraphrase: “Now that we have put our trust in God, we are friends with Him.”
The paraphrase shifts “justified” into “friends with,” removing a key doctrinal term central to Paul’s gospel. The “thought” is reimagined, but the inspired wording is lost.
John 1:14
Literal: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Paraphrase: “The Word became a human and lived here with us.”
“Flesh” carries theological weight tied to the incarnation and human mortality (Romans 8:3). “Dwelt” (tabernacled) alludes to God’s presence in Israel’s tabernacle. “Lived here” captures a general “thought” but strips away deliberate connections.

4. The Subjectivity of “Thought” and “Spirit”

The phrase “translate the spirit of the text” is dangerously vague. Whose idea of the “spirit” governs the translation? Each committee or translator may interpret the “spirit” differently:

One might emphasize relational warmth.
Another might stress doctrinal clarity.
Another might conform to cultural sensibilities.

The result is inconsistency and doctrinal instability. Readers end up with the translator’s commentary rather than God’s precise revelation.

5. The Distinction Between Translation and Interpretation

We must draw a firm line:

Translation = rendering the inspired words into another language as closely as possible, with minimal adjustment for grammar and idiom.
Interpretation = explaining what those words mean.

The fallacy erases this line and turns every translation into commentary. But God’s design is that the church have both faithful translations and teachers (Ephesians 4:11–12). Translation should transmit the text; pastors and teachers should explain it.

6. Why Fidelity to Words Matters

Doctrine Hangs on Words — Justification, sanctification, covenant, redemption—these are not abstract ideas but precise terms. Replacing them erodes theological structure.
Readers Deserve God’s Words, Not Human Substitutes — Believers are called to live “by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). They cannot do that if translators replace words with “thoughts.”
Unity Across the Church — A word-based translation allows the global church to study the same inspired terms, not a patchwork of subjective paraphrases.

7. Positive Examples of Fidelity

NASB / ESV / UASV preserve key terms like “justification,” “propitiation,” and “covenant,” maintaining verbal accuracy while still using readable English.
Paraphrases like The Message or Good News Bible frequently claim to capture the “spirit,” but their renderings are interpretations that often bypass the inspired words.

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The claim that the translator’s job is to render the “thought” or “spirit” of the text rather than the words is a fundamental misunderstanding of inspiration. God gave words, not free-floating ideas. The translator’s sacred responsibility is to transmit those words faithfully in another language. Teachers and preachers may then explain them—but no translator has the right to replace them. To abandon the words for the “spirit” is to move from Scripture to speculation.

Fallacy #11 — “Cultural Context Must Be Adapted to Avoid Offending Modern Readers.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy arises from the belief that some biblical language, practices, or teachings are offensive in today’s culture and should therefore be softened, rephrased, or replaced in translation. Advocates argue that since modern readers might be repelled by words such as “slave,” “submit,” “wrath,” or “hell,” translators should use gentler or culturally acceptable terms.

The rationale is: “If readers are offended, they will not listen, and the message of the Bible will be hindered. Better to adapt it into language that feels non-threatening.” But this is a serious mistake. The Bible is not a human product meant to conform to modern sensibilities—it is God’s Word, and it sometimes intentionally confronts cultural values. To remove offense by reshaping the text is to silence the very rebuke God intends.

2. The Nature of Cultural Offense in Scripture

The Bible has always offended human pride and cultural assumptions:

1 Corinthians 1:23 — “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.”
Hebrews 4:12 — “The word of God is living and active… discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
John 6:60 — Many of Jesus’ disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

If God’s Word offended in the first century, we should expect it to offend today. The problem is not the language of Scripture but the hardness of the human heart (Romans 8:7).

3. Examples of Dangerous Adaptation

“Slave” Replaced with “Servant”
- Literal: doulos = “slave.”
- Adaptation: many modern translations soften it to “servant.”
- Problem: A servant is a hired worker; a slave is owned. Paul repeatedly calls himself a slave of Christ Jesus (Romans 1:1; Philippians 1:1). The term communicates absolute allegiance and belonging. Replacing it with “servant” weakens the theological force.
“Wives Submit” Recast as “Wives Support”
- Literal (Ephesians 5:22): “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”
- Adaptation: “Wives, be supportive of your husbands.”
- Problem: The command is altered to avoid offense in egalitarian cultures. Yet the biblical concept of submission is not inferiority but covenantal order reflecting Christ and the church. Changing the term shifts doctrine.
“Hell” Replaced with “Grave” or Removed
- Literal: Jesus warns of Gehenna (Mark 9:43).
- Adaptation: Some modern paraphrases remove references to hell altogether, or render them vaguely (“the place of the dead”).
- Problem: Jesus intentionally used severe warnings. To erase them out of cultural discomfort undermines His teaching.

4. Why This Fallacy is Presumptuous

It Assumes Human Offense is a Mistake in God’s Word
Yet Scripture is designed to confront. Softening it suggests that God’s chosen words are inadequate for today.
It Places Cultural Sensibilities Above Divine Revelation
The translator becomes an editor who decides which parts of God’s Word are acceptable. This is the same error warned against in Proverbs 30:5–6: “Every word of God proves true… Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you.”
It Produces Doctrinal Distortion
Adapting terms not only makes the Bible more palatable but also reshapes its theology. The offense is not removed; the truth is removed.

5. The Right Approach: Preserve, Then Explain

Faithful translators:

Preserve the original wording even if it grates against cultural expectations.
Provide explanatory notes when terms carry different connotations today than in the ancient world (e.g., slavery in the Bible versus modern chattel slavery).
Leave teaching to pastors and teachers who can help readers wrestle with difficult truths.

This approach respects the inspired words while helping readers engage them honestly, rather than replacing them with softer substitutes.

6. Historical Perspective

Throughout history, faithful translators have resisted cultural pressures:

William Tyndale translated doulos as “bondservant” or “servant,” but he explained it in his notes as total belonging to Christ.
The Reformers insisted on keeping terms like “justification” and “propitiation,” even when controversial, because they were biblical words that carried doctrine.

Modern paraphrases that bow to cultural offense repeat the same mistake Rome made when it withheld Scripture in Latin to protect people from “misunderstanding.” God did not call us to shield people from His Word but to proclaim it.

7. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The claim that translators must adapt Scripture to avoid offending modern readers undermines both fidelity and authority. God’s Word has always offended human pride and cultural values; it was never designed to flatter the world. The translator’s task is not to soften or reshape God’s Word but to transmit it faithfully. If Scripture offends, let it offend—because offense may lead to conviction, repentance, and salvation.

Fallacy #12 — “Interpretive Translations Are Better for Evangelism and New Believers.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy suggests that new Christians or those unfamiliar with Scripture will struggle with precise, literal translations. Advocates argue that simplified or paraphrased translations are better suited for evangelism and discipleship because they remove theological “jargon” and make the Bible instantly accessible.

The reasoning is: “If people are overwhelmed by technical terms like justification or sanctification, they will turn away. We must give them a version they can easily grasp.” While well-meaning, this approach substitutes accessibility for accuracy, effectively feeding people a diluted form of Scripture rather than the whole counsel of God’s Word.

2. Why This Fallacy Is Misguided

It Assumes New Believers Cannot Learn
Scripture itself presumes that God’s people can and must grow in understanding (Hebrews 5:12–14). To hand them an interpretive paraphrase is to underestimate their capacity for learning under the Spirit’s guidance and faithful teaching.
It Replaces the Word with Commentary
Interpretive translations do not simply make the text clearer; they insert human interpretation into the line of Scripture. This denies new believers the opportunity to wrestle with God’s words directly.
It Creates Dependency on the Translator
If a Bible presents itself as “clear” by already doing the work of interpretation, readers may never learn to discern the text themselves. They are conditioned to rely on someone else’s summary instead of engaging with God’s words.

3. Biblical Expectation for New Believers

The New Testament assumes that new believers will be confronted with profound truths and will grow by engaging them:

1 Peter 2:2 — “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation.” Notice: the “milk” is still Scripture—pure, undiluted truth—not watered-down commentary.
John 16:13 — Jesus promised that the Spirit would guide the apostles into truth. Their writings now serve as that Spirit-inspired truth for believers. The Spirit’s means of growth is the Word itself, not a simplified substitute.
Romans 10:17 — “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Evangelism succeeds not because of interpretive paraphrases, but because of God’s Word faithfully proclaimed.

4. Examples of Distortion

Romans 3:25
Literal: “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”
Paraphrase: “God offered him, so that by his death he could take away our sins.”
The paraphrase removes “propitiation” and the concept of wrath being satisfied, depriving new believers of the sacrificial and judicial dimensions of Christ’s death.
2 Corinthians 5:21
Literal: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Paraphrase: “God made Christ share our sin so that we could share God’s goodness.”
The paraphrase simplifies but dilutes the theological heart of justification—Christ’s substitutionary work and imputed righteousness.

5. Evangelism Needs Truth, Not Dilution

The gospel itself is inherently “foolishness” to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 1:18). Its power lies not in human eloquence or simplification but in the faithful proclamation of Christ crucified. To substitute interpretive renderings for the real text risks giving unbelievers a softened version of the gospel that cannot convict or save.

6. The Right Approach with New Believers

Give them a faithful, literal translation (ESV, NASB, UASV, etc.).
Pair it with teaching, discipleship, and study helps—footnotes, glossaries, sermons, and mentors can explain difficult terms.
Encourage patient growth rather than instant gratification. Christianity is a lifelong journey of learning, not a quick fix.

7. Why This Fallacy Appeals to Translators

Desire for Accessibility — The motive is usually pastoral, wanting Scripture to be “easy.”
Marketability — Simplified Bibles sell well to parents, youth ministries, and seekers.
Cultural Assumptions — In an age of short attention spans, there is pressure to make everything instantly digestible.

But God has never promised instant understanding—He has promised that His Word is sufficient, powerful, and living (Hebrews 4:12).

8. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The idea that interpretive translations are better for evangelism and new believers is misguided. It deprives people of the very words God inspired, offering them commentary in place of revelation. The true task is to give them God’s Word in faithful translation and then walk with them as they grow in understanding. Evangelism and discipleship thrive when Scripture itself—undiluted and uncompromised—is read, taught, and believed.

Fallacy #13 — “Ancient Languages Are Too Ambiguous to Translate Literally.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy argues that Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are so ambiguous, fluid, or nuanced that it is impossible to translate them literally without distortion. Advocates insist that since many words have broad ranges of meaning, translators must choose an interpretation for the reader rather than render words directly. In their view, literal translation leaves too much uncertainty, so interpretive translation is necessary to “clarify.”

But this is misleading. While all languages have polysemy (words with multiple senses), disciplined lexical study, grammar, and context almost always constrain the meaning. The Bible’s ancient languages are no more “ambiguous” than English, French, or Spanish. Claiming otherwise provides cover for translators to insert their own interpretation instead of faithfully transmitting the inspired words.

2. Why the Fallacy is False

Every Language Has Ambiguity
English words like bank (riverbank vs. financial institution) or light (illumination vs. not heavy) are ambiguous outside context. But once placed in a sentence, the meaning becomes clear. Ancient languages work the same way.
Lexical and Grammatical Constraints Narrow Meaning
Context, syntax, and parallel usage limit possible senses. For example, the Greek word sarx can mean “flesh,” “body,” or metaphorically “human weakness,” but its meaning in any given passage is usually evident from grammar and context.
Inspiration Assumes Knowability
God gave His Word in real human languages meant to be understood (Deuteronomy 30:11–14). To claim the languages are hopelessly ambiguous undermines both inspiration and the clarity of Scripture.

3. Examples of Misuse

Romans 8:6–8
Literal: “For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.”
Some argue sarx (“flesh”) is too ambiguous, so they paraphrase: “If you think only about yourself, you will die.”
But sarx does not merely mean “yourself.” It refers to human weakness and mortality apart from God. Context makes it clear. The so-called “ambiguity” does not require paraphrase; it requires faithful rendering.
Genesis 15:6
Literal: “And he believed Jehovah, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”
Paraphrase tendency: “Abram trusted the Lord, and the Lord was pleased with him.”
Here the claim is that “counted as righteousness” is too abstract. Yet Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 builds entire arguments on this wording. Rendering it as “pleased with him” eliminates the legal and covenantal context.
John 3:8
Literal: “The wind blows where it wishes… so it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Because the Greek pneuma can mean “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit,” some paraphrases collapse the imagery: “It is the same with the Spirit—you cannot explain how it works.”
Yet the double meaning is intentional, not confusing. Literal translation preserves the inspired wordplay, while paraphrase erases it.

4. The Role of Polysemy in Biblical Theology

The richness of biblical vocabulary depends on words carrying layers of meaning across contexts:

Zeraʿ (“seed”) can mean offspring, physical seed, or metaphorical lineage. Paul draws on this in Galatians 3:16 to show that the promise was to Christ.
Dikaiosynē (“righteousness”) carries legal, covenantal, and ethical dimensions. Reducing it to “goodness” robs it of doctrinal weight.
Chesed (often “steadfast love” or “lovingkindness”) conveys covenant loyalty. To flatten it into “kindness” destroys its covenantal significance.

Far from being a problem, such richness is a feature of inspiration. Literal translation preserves this richness so readers can study it; interpretive translation prematurely resolves it.

5. Why Translators Invoke the “Ambiguity” Argument

To Justify Interpretation — Claiming ambiguity gives license to insert commentary.
To Simplify Doctrine — Difficult theological terms are replaced with vague approximations.
To Appease Readability Concerns — Publishers prefer versions that read smoothly, even if theological depth is lost.

But in reality, context and comparison resolve most difficulties. The remaining “hard sayings” (2 Peter 3:16) were meant to challenge readers—not to be erased by translators.

6. Positive Approach to Ambiguity

Preserve the Original Word where possible, even if it requires readers to study.
Use Consistent Renderings so readers can trace words across Scripture (e.g., “flesh” for sarx, “righteousness” for dikaiosynē).
Provide Notes, Not Paraphrases when ambiguity is genuine. For instance, the NASB often gives the literal rendering in the text and alternate possibilities in footnotes.

7. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The claim that ancient languages are too ambiguous to translate literally is false. Like all languages, Hebrew and Greek have words with multiple senses, but context, grammar, and lexicon constrain meaning. To overplay ambiguity is to give translators cover for inserting their own interpretations. Faithful translation preserves the inspired words, trusts readers to study, and lets Scripture’s own interconnections resolve difficulties.

Fallacy #14 — “Literal Translations Ignore the Needs of Diverse Audiences.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy suggests that literal, word-for-word translations fail to serve the wide range of readers who approach the Bible—children, new believers, people from non-Western cultures, or those with limited education. Advocates argue that because audiences are diverse, translations must be tailored, flexible, and adapted to each group’s needs. They conclude that literal translations are too rigid, too academic, and insufficiently “inclusive.”

While the concern for accessibility is understandable, the conclusion is false. Literal translations do not ignore diverse audiences—they provide a faithful base text for all audiences. What actually undermines diversity is producing many interpretive paraphrases that fracture Scripture into culturally or age-specific versions, each with altered wording.

2. Why the Fallacy Is Misleading

Scripture Was Given as One Word for All
The Great Commission commands: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20). Jesus did not envision multiple reworded gospels, one for each culture. The same inspired text is for every person, across every nation, tribe, and tongue.
Literal Translation Preserves Unity
A faithful, literal text ensures that the same doctrinal anchors (covenant, justification, sanctification, propitiation, etc.) remain intact for all audiences. If translators adjust terms to suit different audiences, each group ends up with a slightly different “Bible,” and the global church loses a common foundation.
Teaching Bridges Gaps, Not Altered Translation
The early church used one inspired text and explained it through teaching (Acts 8:30–35). When the Ethiopian eunuch didn’t understand Isaiah 53, Philip did not rewrite the text for him—he explained it. Translation preserves the text; pastors and teachers help audiences understand it.

3. Examples of How This Fallacy Distorts Scripture

“Covenant” Replaced with “Agreement”
Advocates say “covenant” is too academic for children or people unfamiliar with biblical language, so it should be replaced with “agreement” or “promise.” But a covenant is more than a casual agreement—it is a solemn, binding, divine oath. To dilute it for “accessibility” erases the very concept God chose.
“Sanctification” Replaced with “Becoming Good”
To simplify for diverse audiences, some translations reduce “sanctification” to “becoming good” or “becoming holy.” But sanctification is not merely moral improvement—it is being set apart by God. A “diverse audience” translation that substitutes this term weakens doctrine.
Children’s Versions That Oversimplify
Children’s “Bibles” often reduce entire narratives into paraphrased moral lessons, omitting theology. For example, the story of David and Goliath is rendered as “God helps you defeat your fears,” instead of the inspired account about God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel. The problem is not age—but fidelity. Even children deserve God’s words, simply explained.

4. Why a Faithful Text Serves Everyone

One Inspired Word Across Cultures
A literal translation gives all people the same text. Africans, Asians, South Americans, Europeans, children, adults, rich, poor—every believer receives the same anchor. That is true universality.
Study Resources Can Help
Diverse audiences can be supported by footnotes, glossaries, dictionaries, commentaries, and preaching. This is how God designed His church—teachers explaining Scripture (Ephesians 4:11–12).
Diversity Does Not Equal Doctrinal Flexibility
To meet diverse audiences, we do not need multiple theologically thinned-out Bibles; we need faithful Bibles accompanied by contextual teaching.

5. Positive Example

The NASB and ESV preserve accuracy while still being clear English. They serve as base texts for children’s study Bibles, adult commentaries, global mission work, and academic study. The text is the same; the helps differ.
By contrast, paraphrases like The Message or culturally reshaped versions create multiple “Bibles,” each with a unique spin. Instead of one Word of God for all, they fragment it into a multitude of commentaries.

6. Why This Fallacy Appeals to Some

Cultural Pressures — Modern society prizes relatability and accessibility, so accuracy is sidelined.
Educational Concerns — There is a sincere desire to help children, the uneducated, or second-language readers, but the chosen method—altering Scripture—is misguided.
Publishing Markets — Multiple specialized Bibles for different “audiences” sell more copies, but they divide the text.

7. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The claim that literal translations ignore the needs of diverse audiences is false. Literal translations preserve the one Word of God for all peoples, exactly as He inspired it. Diversity is addressed not by altering the text but by faithfully teaching it, explaining it, and providing resources. The same Scriptures that serve scholars can serve children, missionaries, and new believers—because they are the living Word of God, unchanging across cultures.

Fallacy #15 — “Readers Can’t Handle Complex Theological Terms, So They Should Be Simplified.”

1. The Claim Explained

This fallacy assumes that biblical terms like propitiation, justification, sanctification, redemption, and covenant are too difficult for ordinary readers. Because these words are not part of everyday conversation, some argue they should be replaced with simpler, more familiar expressions. For example, propitiation might be rendered “sacrifice,” or sanctification replaced with “becoming holy.”

The reasoning is: “If we make the Bible easier to read, people will understand it better.” But this logic is flawed. While simpler words may feel easier, they often fail to carry the precise meaning that God intended. Reducing complex terms weakens doctrine and deprives readers of the vocabulary Scripture itself uses to explain salvation, covenant life, and God’s redemptive purposes.

2. The Importance of Theological Vocabulary

The Bible itself does not shy away from deep or technical terms. Instead, it gives God’s people the very words they need to understand His covenant and promises.

Romans 3:25 — Paul uses hilastērion (“propitiation”), a technical sacrificial term drawn from the mercy seat imagery of the tabernacle. Translating it merely as “sacrifice” reduces its meaning, which involves satisfaction of God’s wrath.
Hebrews 9:15 — The author speaks of the “new covenant,” invoking covenantal theology that spans from Abraham through Christ. Replacing “covenant” with “agreement” flattens the solemn, oath-bound reality into a business-like contract.
1 Thessalonians 4:3 — “This is the will of God, your sanctification.” If replaced with “your becoming good” or “your holy living,” the sense of being set apart by God is lost.

These terms are not ornamental—they are essential. They connect to patterns, rituals, and promises developed across Scripture. To erase them is to cut the thread that ties the biblical narrative together.

3. The Danger of Oversimplification

Doctrinal Loss
Simplifying terms destroys theological precision. “Justification” does not simply mean “forgiveness”—it means being declared righteous in God’s courtroom. If replaced, key doctrines are obscured.
Generational Drift
When one generation grows up without hearing biblical terms, the next loses not only words but categories of thought. Churches then must labor to reintroduce biblical vocabulary that translators removed.
Illusion of Understanding
Simplification makes readers feel like they understand, but in reality, they are receiving only part of the truth. For instance, calling atonement “payment” might communicate part of the idea but omits its covenantal and sacrificial context.

4. Biblical Expectation of Learning

God does not assume His people are incapable of learning difficult terms. Instead, He calls them to grow in knowledge:

Hebrews 5:12–14 — The author rebukes believers for remaining infants who cannot handle “solid food.” Mature believers are expected to learn and use deeper categories.
Colossians 1:10 — Believers are to “increase in the knowledge of God.”
Psalm 119:130 — “The unfolding of your words gives light.” Note that understanding comes from unfolding the words, not replacing them.

New believers may not immediately grasp terms like “propitiation” or “sanctification,” but Scripture calls them to maturity through teaching, not to remain in oversimplification.

5. Examples of Simplification vs. Fidelity

Romans 5:9
Literal: “having now been justified by his blood.”
Simplified: “God has made us right with him.”
Problem: While smoother, “made us right” misses the courtroom imagery of justification.
Exodus 24:8
Literal: “This is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has made with you.”
Simplified: “This shows you belong to God.”
Problem: It loses covenant language and sacrificial connection.
1 John 2:2
Literal: “He is the propitiation for our sins.”
Simplified: “He is the one who forgives our sins.”
Problem: Forgiveness is true, but “propitiation” adds the reality of God’s wrath being satisfied—an essential doctrine.

6. The Right Approach

Preserve Complex Terms — Keep the precise biblical wording in translation.
Provide Explanations — Use footnotes, glossaries, study helps, and preaching to explain difficult terms.
Encourage Growth — Treat readers as disciples capable of maturing in knowledge, not as consumers to be appeased with easy language.

This reflects the pattern of Nehemiah 8:8: “They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” The text was preserved; the sense was explained.

7. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The idea that readers cannot handle complex theological terms is false. God gave His Word with precise vocabulary to build His people in truth. Simplification may feel accessible, but it impoverishes doctrine and deprives believers of the very words God inspired. Faithful translators preserve the terms, and faithful teachers explain them. Readers, whether new believers or seasoned Christians, can and must learn the vocabulary of salvation.

Fallacy #16 — “Interpretive Translations Are More ‘Inspired’ Because They Focus on Meaning.”

1. The Claim Explained

Some modern translation advocates argue that interpretive or dynamic translations are actually more inspired than literal ones because they capture the “spirit” or “intended meaning” of the text rather than being bound to words. The reasoning is: “Since the Holy Spirit inspired the meaning, not the words, translators who focus on thought-for-thought renderings preserve inspiration more faithfully than those who adhere to rigid literalism.”

But this claim is theologically and logically flawed. Inspiration is not transferable through clever paraphrasing—it belongs uniquely to the original words God breathed out. Translations carry authority only insofar as they accurately reflect those inspired words. To elevate interpretive renderings as “more inspired” confuses eloquence with faithfulness and replaces divine revelation with human commentary.

2. The Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration

Scripture’s testimony is that inspiration is verbal and plenary:

2 Timothy 3:16 — “All Scripture is breathed out by God.” Not just concepts, but the very graphe (writings, words).
2 Peter 1:21 — Men spoke “from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The Spirit superintended specific word choice, not just general thoughts.
Galatians 3:16 — Paul grounds an argument on the singular “seed” (not “seeds”). This shows that inspiration extends to the grammatical form of words, not only broad ideas.

Thus, inspiration resides in the exact wording of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Translations are not re-inspired; they are faithful insofar as they preserve those words and structures.

3. The Danger of Calling Interpretive Translations “More Inspired”

It Shifts Authority from God to Translators
If inspiration lies in the translator’s ability to capture “meaning,” then every translator becomes a fresh inspired prophet. This contradicts the closed canon and undermines the sufficiency of Scripture.
It Creates Doctrinal Instability
Each interpretive translation may claim to convey the “spirit” of the text, but inevitably they differ. Which one is “more inspired”? The result is confusion, with shifting authority resting on style rather than substance.
It Diminishes the Church’s Responsibility
By suggesting the text must already be “interpreted” in translation, it removes the need for teachers, expositors, and diligent study (cf. Neh. 8:8). But God’s design is that pastors and teachers explain Scripture—translation should preserve it, not pre-digest it.

4. Examples of the Fallacy in Action

Romans 8:3
Literal: “By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.”
Interpretive: “God went for the jugular when he sent his own Son. He didn’t deal with the problem as something remote and unimportant.” (The Message)
The interpretive rendering is vivid, but it is commentary—not Scripture. Inspiration rests in Paul’s precise words about incarnation and condemnation, not in modern metaphors.
John 1:18
Literal: “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”
Interpretive: “No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.”
The latter is smoother, but it shifts nuance and textual emphasis. The authority rests in John’s actual wording, not in stylistic paraphrase.

5. Why This Fallacy Appeals to Some

Mystical Leanings — The idea that “the Spirit’s meaning” floats above words appeals to those who mistrust careful exegesis.
Marketing Pressure — Publishers often promote “fresh,” “relevant,” or “more inspired” Bibles to sell them as spiritually superior.
Reader Preference — People prefer emotionally resonant paraphrases and mistake them for deeper inspiration.

But this reduces inspiration to subjective impact—how a text “feels” to a modern reader—rather than what God actually inspired.

6. The Right Understanding

Inspiration Is Fixed in the Autographs — The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek originals are uniquely God-breathed.
Translations Are Ministerial, Not Inspired — They serve the church by faithfully transmitting God’s words but are not themselves inspired in the same sense.
Faithful Translations Retain Authority — A translation that accurately reflects the words of Scripture is authoritative because it points back to the inspired originals.

7. Conclusion on the Fallacy

The claim that interpretive translations are “more inspired” because they capture meaning is false and dangerous. Inspiration rests in the original words, not in translators’ creative renderings. A translation is authoritative only insofar as it faithfully preserves God’s chosen words. Where translators cling to the text, the church retains Scripture; where they substitute their own interpretations, the church loses sight of what God actually said.

The translator’s calling, then, is not to be a second inspired author but a faithful steward—transmitting God’s Word as it stands, leaving interpretation to the churchgoers.

You May Also Enjoy

Literal Translation: Seven Fallacies About the Bible

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).

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS