When I started this blog, I was becoming a huge fan of the New English Translation (NET) of the Bible. As a sort of “living document,” the digital format of the NET allows it to continually refine its translation as older copies of the Bible are discovered, allowing us to grow closer and closer to what was originally written. But most of all, I loved its notes. Accessing the NET is like having a quality commentary on hand for absolutely no cost. As someone who’s not an ancient biblical scholar, the notes have become a wonderful way to understand the deeper context of what I’m reading.
Literally paraphrasing
Yet over the past few months, I’ve been finding the translation style of the NET to be lacking for my needs. Many have requested an article/series on understanding the different Bible translations. It’s coming at some point, but for now, I want to reference a very handy chart:
In a nutshell, Bible translations fall on a spectrum of literal vs paraphrased. As you look at the chart, you’ll see that the far left translations are often more difficult to read because they closely follow the word-for-word translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic text. Likewise, those translations on the far left are easier to read because they take the original meaning and put it in more modern terms, often giving an interpretation of what it means for sake of readability.
As a rule, I try to recommend that people attempt to use the literal translations for their Bible study. When reading something for sake of absorbing the story (like reading through Judges or 1 Kings), I personally don’t mind using something as loose as the NLT, but I won’t use it for any actual learning.
Enter the NET. By primarily reading the notes, I admit I hadn’t paid attention to how the translation stacked up to others. I assumed that if the notes were that thorough, the translation would be just as studious. Then I wrote my article on how hilarious I found the book of Job, and I noticed a problem that had been building for awhile. Consider the punchline verse of Job 38:3 from the NET as compared to the NASB:
Get ready for a difficult task like a man; I will question you and you will inform me! (NET)
Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! (NASB)
To reiterate, I have no issue with loose, more modernized translations to a certain degree. There’s no grand conspiracy by Satan to undermine the gospel. The meanings here are exactly the same, it’s just that one is translated as accurately as possible while the other takes the translation and explains what “gird your loins” would mean in the context. Both are fine. Really.
However, at that time it occurred to me that I’d been consulting the NASB fairly regularly for my articles, yet posting NET translations. I wanted to be an NET fan because of it’s top-notch notes from the translators, yet I wasn’t being thoughtful to the translation philosophy. Add to this that I use the ESV at my church and with my family, and I had no idea what translation I really preferred!
Tricked by a friend
I brought up my concerns to Chris, a dear Christian brother and occasional co-blogger, after I finished last Friday’s article. I was feeling discouraged because I had ended up using NASB translations for the verses I posted because it was increasingly obvious the NET was using the more dynamic translation style of something like the NIV, rather than the literal method of the NASB or ESV.
He agreed with my conclusions and asked me a seemingly random question.
“Did you check out my NASB app recommendation I gave you a while back?”
I had no idea what he was talking about. The only app he’d recently recommended to me, at least when I was paying attention, was The Literal Word. I’d downloaded it to check it out, and it ended up becoming my app for daily reading when I didn’t need to consult notes in my Olive Tree Bible App. I was sold by the clean interface and translation, and I assumed it was the ESV translation so I didn’t need to worry about juggling multiple translations when trying to recall a verse.
Well, wouldn’t you know it. I checked, and the app itself even says it’s NASB. I’d spent the last few months bouncing between Hebrews and some Old Testament books, so I hadn’t noticed that the translation differed from my usual ESV. Without realizing it, I’d been loving a translation I figured I’d never use. The same version I’d been consulting for the majority of this blog, even though I’d never really quoted it. So… I guess I’m a NASB man now.
Right now, I’m in a weird place. The NASB looks like it will become my new study translation. Despite the more difficult reading compared to the ESV, I do like that I have to do less digging into commentaries to find what was originally said. I’ll have to get a new physical Bible with my MacArthur commentary, but at least this one won’t have a corner that once served as a dog’s chew toy!
As for the blog itself, I’m still on the fence on which translation to use. I want to post verses that readers will actually look at, and the NASB doesn’t always lend itself well to a quick and easy read. The ESV can occasionally be guilty of the same thing, falling in a weird place between “too literal for an easy read” and “too loose for deep study.” At the same time, I don’t want to post a misrepresentation of the original author’s intent.
Tell me what you think!
I’d love to hear readers’ thoughts on the matter. Would you prefer an article’s verses to be:
- Easier to read so you can get back to the point being made, allowing you to use a more literal translation for your own study
- Something that sticks closely to the original text, regardless of how difficult it is to read quickly
- A mix of both, depending on if the article needs to draw attention to the thought being made vs. the actual words used by the author
Let me know in the comments, on social media, or through our contact form!
