Differing Methods of Bible Translation: Verbal Correspondence versus Interpretive Paraphrase

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

$5.00

Introduction: The Translation Divide and Why It Matters

No other discipline within biblical studies impacts the average Christian more directly than Bible translation. While textual criticism reconstructs the original text and exegesis expounds its meaning, the translation is what most people interact with daily. The foundational debate centers on this question: Should a translator prioritize what the text says, or what the translator thinks it means? The answer to this question divides the translation world into two fundamentally divergent philosophies—verbal correspondence (a truly literal approach) and dynamic equivalence (interpretive paraphrase). The former seeks to convey the very words of Scripture as God gave them through His inspired writers. The latter prioritizes reader accessibility, often at the cost of textual fidelity.

While this discussion has often been framed as “Essentially Literal vs. Dynamic Equivalent,” that terminology—particularly the phrase “Essentially Literal”—is misleading. The term was coined by the ESV translation committee after abandoning a truly literal methodology. When the ESV hired Bill Mounce, a known advocate of dynamic equivalence, their translation philosophy subtly shifted. The 2022 Updated American Standard Version (UASV), however, represents a recovery of what should be the standard: strict verbal correspondence, with necessary clarification inserted only where grammatical coherence in English demands it. The UASV’s stated mission—to give readers what God said by way of His human authors, not what a translator thinks He meant—must be the benchmark for all faithful Bible translation.

This article will explore the divergent methods of translation through an examination of key differences in rendering both poetic and prose texts, consider the theological and interpretive consequences of each approach, and provide a framework for understanding why dynamic equivalence is more than a stylistic choice—it is a methodological error.

The Heart of the Debate: Words or Ideas?

The chief axis on which translation philosophies rotate is the question: Are the words of the original inspired or merely the ideas? The verbal correspondence school affirms the full verbal inspiration of Scripture, based on texts such as Matthew 5:18 (“not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law”) and 2 Timothy 3:16 (“All Scripture is breathed out by God”). Consequently, translators committed to this view labor to render each word of the original, preserving its form and structure, as far as idiomatic clarity allows.

Dynamic equivalence, pioneered by Eugene Nida, rejects this precision in favor of conveying the “meaning” or “intended message” of the text. As the NLT preface explicitly states, “a translation that departs from verbal correspondence has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately.” But this approach effectively shifts interpretive authority from the reader, guided by Scripture, to the translator. It replaces inspired words with assumed intentions, thereby inserting an intermediate layer of interpretation that stands between the reader and the inspired text.

Case Study: Psalm 139:5—How Metaphors Are Mutilated

Psalm 139:5 provides a sharp example of how divergent translation philosophies yield radically different results:

Literal (UASV/ESV/NRSV):
“You hem me in, behind and before,
and You lay Your hand upon me.”

Dynamic Equivalent Renderings:

GNB: “You are all around me on every side; you protect me with your power.”
REB: “You keep close guard behind and before me and place your hand upon me.”
NLT: “You both precede and follow me. You place your hand of blessing on my head.”
CEV: “… with your powerful arm you protect me from every side.”

Five problems immediately emerge from these dynamic renderings:

The metaphor of being “hemmed in” or “enclosed” is removed, stripping away the poetic structure and imagery.
God’s concrete action of placing His “hand” is reinterpreted as abstract “protection,” or even “blessing,” shifting the semantic field.
The directional terms “behind and before” are replaced by “precede and follow,” flattening the spatial dynamic into mere sequencing.
The metaphor is not just omitted; it is substituted with new metaphors alien to the original.
The reader is no longer trusted to interpret; interpretation is inserted by the translator.

This passage typifies the core failure of dynamic equivalence: it subverts the original metaphors that the inspired author chose and injects interpretive overlays that may not even be implied in the original context. The result is not translation but commentary.

Case Study: Matthew 6:22–23—The Death of Interpretive Responsibility

Literal (UASV/ESV/NIV):
“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”

Dynamic Equivalents:

NLT: “A pure eye lets sunshine into your soul. But an evil eye shuts out the light…”
CEV: “When they are good, you have all the light you need.”
MESSAGE: “Open your eyes wide in wonder and belief… If you pull the blinds on your windows…”

Here we see interpretive paraphrase overtaking translation. The metaphorical depth of Jesus’ teaching is flattened into idiomatic language with culturally imposed assumptions. “Lamp,” “healthy eye,” and “darkness” carry theological and eschatological significance. These terms demand interpretive engagement, not pre-digested explanations.

By turning this vivid spiritual metaphor into banal illustrations (“sunshine into your soul,” “pull the blinds”), the translators presume the role of teacher rather than scribe. They betray their task, which is to transmit—not explain—the Word of God.

A Theological Catastrophe: When Paraphrase Becomes Substitution

Dynamic equivalence not only changes words; it changes theology. Psalm 73:2 in the original conveys spiritual instability:

Literal (UASV):
“But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled; my steps had nearly slipped.”

Dynamic Equivalent (NLT):
“I came so close to the edge of the cliff! My feet were slipping, and I was almost gone.”

MESSAGE:
“I nearly missed it, missed seeing [God’s] goodness.”

Nothing in the Hebrew text references a “cliff,” being “gone,” or “missing God’s goodness.” These are imaginative reconstructions. They do not clarify—they distort. They insert foreign imagery and remove the theological tension inherent in the original. In such renderings, we no longer hear the psalmist’s voice; we hear the paraphraser’s sermon.

As Francis R. Steele noted, “This is certainly not a translation. It is almost a homily; useful in its place, but misleading to one who seeks the words of the Author.” Dynamic equivalence is, in essence, a substitute Bible.

Paraphrase Defined and Demonstrated

Paraphrasing, by definition, involves restating content in one’s own words—often with the goal of clarifying or embellishing. It is a legitimate exercise in devotional writing or homiletics but is antithetical to translation. When applied to Scripture, it introduces:

Additions—interpretive or illustrative details not present in the text.
Substitutions—alternative metaphors or ideas inserted in place of the original.
Reductions—omissions of difficult, obscure, or controversial elements.

Consider Psalm 23:5:

Literal:
“My cup overflows.”

NLT:
“My cup overflows with blessings.”
CEV:
“You fill my cup until it overflows.”

Mark 9:50a Literal:
“Have salt in yourselves.”

NLT:
“You must have the qualities of salt among yourselves.”
MESSAGE:
“Be preservatives yourselves.”

In both examples, the dynamic renderings repackage the text through explanatory additions, entirely unnecessary for conveying the original’s meaning. By making interpretive decisions for the reader, dynamic equivalent translations remove the reader’s responsibility to wrestle with the text—and thus rob the text of its inspired challenge and ambiguity.

Why Literal Translation is the Only Faithful Option

The argument that “all translations paraphrase” because they change languages is both a category error and a misleading equivocation. While translation always involves rendering words into a different language, this is not synonymous with paraphrasing. Paraphrase goes beyond the semantic and syntactic constraints of the original. A truly literal translation, such as the UASV, confines itself to finding the most direct, equivalent lexical and grammatical structures possible. It is not merely an art; it is a disciplined linguistic and theological stewardship.

As Robert Alter observed, the precedent of the KJV (while flawed in textual basis and archaic in language) did serve the church well in training readers for a more literal engagement with the Word. Modern dynamic versions, by contrast, coddle the reader and sever the connection between God’s words and man’s understanding. The result is doctrinal erosion, theological laziness, and interpretive confusion.

Conclusion: The Translator’s Sacred Task

Bible translation is not a creative endeavor. It is a reverent stewardship of divine revelation. Every word, every particle, every idiom in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts is inspired. The translator’s task is to preserve that inspiration in another language—not to embellish, adapt, or comment. The UASV stands nearly alone today as the only English translation that has reclaimed this high ground.

Dynamic equivalence offers not just a different style of translation but a fundamentally different theology of Scripture. It elevates human interpretation above divine inspiration, cloaks paraphrase as translation, and ultimately leads readers away from—not toward—the actual words of God. In the end, only one question matters: Do we want essentially the Word of God—or do we want exactly what He said?

You May Also Enjoy

Divergent Views of the Bible’s Authors, Readers, and Translators

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).