Literal vs Dynamic Bible Translations - "Word for Word" and "Thought for Thought" 

I agree. I think it is profitable to read from both. I like NASB, since it is literal, has added words in italics, Small caps of OT references in NT, and brackets for verses in question (rather than removed to footnotes like ESV). I love NASB for deep study, and I love the CSB for my devotional reading, and just a solid alternative. I think we can all benefit from the use of a literal and a dynamic translation.

I was on the edge of my seat waiting on that CSB plug lol great video

Great perspective on the topic. It’s the exact reason why I read from multiple translations. You get a better sense of what the original authors said in their idioms and such, and you get the modern rendition of it. It’s never bad to have both.

I find the CSB is a good balance between the two ( dynamic vs. formal).

You’re gonna pisseth some folks off. Understandeth what thou art doing? 😂😂😂 Great video brother!

Thank you for this video, it has helped me a lot with understanding Bible translations. I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, so for me knowing what the original writer said as close as possible is very important to me, yet I want to understand what I'm reading. This is why I love the NKJV Bible with its translation notes. I believe it's what sets it apart, at least in my humble opinion. Great video.

I enjoyed listening to your thoughts on the subject Bro. Frisch. 👍✝️🙏

Good accuracy with good READABILITY = a good BIBLE. OPTIMAL. CSB.

Thanks for doing this, I thought this was very helpful! You make great points and I think the CSB does not get the full credit it deserves. I am a student of the NASB mostly. I am a Youth Pastor and every week I found myself explaining into better common English even what the NASB and sometimes ESV was saying to my students I preach to. So I discovered the CSB. It really is one I can recommend to any age group. It does not go so far as the NIV on the dynamic side, but it is also does not go so far on the literal side as the NASB all the time. In addition to all this about the CSB, the translators put a lot of translation footnotes. When they deviate from the more literal rendering of a phrase, 90% of the time there is a footnote showing you what the literal translation was. I REALLY appreciate that. Thanks again sir, this was great.

I took three semesters of French in the early 60's Junior and High Schools. I learned nothing about how to converse with a French speaking person, but instead relearned proper grammatical structure in that particular foreign language. In many ways, I had to "unlearn " all of the English grammar I had been taught for years. When I was in my 40's I had a job where several Spanish speaking people were employed, so I tried to learn conversational Spanish by taking a night class. There was nothing conversational about the class. Once again, we had to educate ourselves first in grammar before we could learn how to ask where the bathroom was! So, I understand why many Bible students get confused when trying to select the version they are comfortable with. I had previously sworn that I would only use the KJV and NKJV. Then the NASB was added to the mix because of a series of classes I was taking. After that, a family member started using the ESV, so in order to study together more easily, I added that version to my library. Then I started watching RU-vid channels......!

Personally, I love the adventure of literal translations. Although I do see the value of dynamic translations in that they give the basics to someone who may not dwell too much on Scripture, I prefer seeing how the author actually said what they said. "Pisseth against the walls" forces you to think a little bit more about what is being said. I mean if the author and/or speaker just wanted to say male, they knew the word for it. There is something that they are trying to convey with that phrase that is completely lost with a dynamic translation that replaces it with "male". Personally, I think what is lost in this case is that sense of aggression or crudeness that is lost in that specific instance. I mean the speaker chose those specific words to convey an emotion or attitude towards the subject of discussion for a reason. In my opinion, it adds something to the narrative. Now imagine a case where this kind of dynamic rendering is consistently done throughout the Bible. I would feel as if I'm reading half a story, and in some extreme cases, being given a whole new narrative or teaching. This is why I enjoy and prefer literal translations for most of my reading. In some cases, you may even find that a more literal rendering connects some dots that wouldn't have been otherwise available to connect in a more liberal rendering. My favorite literal translations are NASB (because it is a bit more readable, and provides a lot of literal renderings in footnotes in places where they opted to go a different way), and YLT (for its unapologetic 'literalness', although I've noticed that TS 2009 also does this in most cases, and even in places where the rendering may be controversial, though it is actually literal). NET does provide a lot of notes, but I've noticed one or two difficult passages where they didn't give any notes. Also, constantly having to go to the footnotes makes this a study tool at best for me. I may only use it for difficult passages, since I'm more interested in the footnotes than the actual translation. But my best translation at the moment, though I've only used it for a short time, is LSV. I mean how many translations actually render Job 2:9 in this way: "And his wife says "You are still keeping hold on your integrity: bless God and die."" I know that theologically blessing God isn't supposed to lead to death, and that probably influenced the translators into rendering it as "curse", but that is not what the text says. I do understand that it may be best for someone who is not theologically sound to read the popular rendering among translations, which is "curse", but for me, I kind of wonder whether the wife was implying that if Job continues to bless God he will die, because blessing God doesn't seem to be working out for him, and therefore he's better off trying to live like everyone else does if he wants to survive the ordeal, rather than telling Job to curse God and die. Job's response would actually make more sense in this instance when he tells his wife that she speaks "as one of the foolish women", since it is more likely that the foolish women said "there is no God", rather than "curse God and die". Without a literal rendering like LSV, most people wouldn't even be aware of such a conundrum, and I remember being frustrated that no popular translation (literal or not) actually rendered the word as it is in the manuscripts. If the author wasn't worried about misleading readers, and also feared God, then perhaps we should also have faith in God leading His children through the Scriptures, and helping them understand difficult passages.

That's an awesome video! Thanks for all the great content on Bible translations I'm really enjoying them all. Keep up the great work!

Yes, the trouble with using only _one_ translation, be it ever so good, is that one is thereby committed to the exegetical choices of that translation. As some of the commentators of this video have stated, "it is profitable to read from a continuum of multiple translations." Learned a lot from this. Thanks for uploading :-)

Literal Bible translations often focus on irrelevant minutiae. Dynamic Bible translations seem to hate figurative language. One reason that I'm a big fan of the New Revised Standard Version is that it knows when not be tediously literal in its syntax, but it also respects the value of the original authors' turns of speech and metaphors. And for the record, the NRSV says "came to the ears" in Acts 11.22, and that's how I prefer it. The original idiom, which uses the figure of speech known as synecdoche, is easy to understand and more vibrant than the flat "reached" alternative (itself a dead metaphor in English), so there's no reason to dump it.

Another excellent video. This is a great because instead of pitting one translation against another you explain how different translations have different strengths and can compliment each other. Thanks!

I really appreciate your passion for Bible translation and also how you share. You are very approachable and honoring in your videos.

I like the CSB more and more.

Great video! Love the wealth of examples!

Hey Brother Tim, congrats on breaking 1K! Good work😎

As a minister of the Gospel for many years, I have learned an important lesson that has aided in my choice of translation: There is no such thing as a Literal Translation. For the most part, it is a marketing ploy to pull students to their product.

I'm so glad you're wlling to step up to the plate on topics like these!(no play off the shirt) Thank you and keep up the great work!!!

I got a CSB yesterday so I will like it in lieu of HCSB.

That was good, thank you. Your summaries saves me from having to read those two books! Most important lesson: All translations require interpretation.

Thank you very much for sharing this, it was a great help

My preferred translation is the NASB95 due to its literal translation. Other translations in my library are the Interlinear, KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NET Bible(for the amazing 60,000 translator notes) and AMP2015.

Very good discussion of the topic. Thanks!

Very well done my friend. I enjoy your videos regarding translations, you do a great job with them.

Great video! Mostly read dynamic equivalence bibles but going to start reading more word-for-word biles.

Love listening to your discussions, while working on my laptop. I been using ESV but i may get the new niv study bible.

Huge help brother. I keep flip-flopping between the many versions I have. I’ve been a KJVer forever but keep gravitating to others. Trying desperately to pick just one to really dig into but that I understand with accuracy. So now after your video I’ll just grab one off the shelf & dig in using others for backup to help support my studies. Again, thank you! ❤️🙏

Thanks! Personally, I prefer the NRSV and the Bibles like the CSB, the NABRE. They tend to flow better between the two translation philosophies.

Great videos! Thanks 👍

Personally, my comfy zone is somewhere in the middle, the Goldie Locks translation; not too literal and not too dynamic. However, I do enjoy translations on the extremes of the "spectrum." Both for different applications. My current favorites are CSB, ESV, NASB2020, and BSB.

My translation of 1 John 3.17 does basically the same thing the ESV did: "But whoever has the substance of the world, and sees his brother in need, and shuts his heart from him, how can the love of God abide in him?"

Excellent. Thank you.

Excellent perspective

I explain the 2 concepts like this Formal equivalent aims to be faithful to the words chosen by the author . Dynamic equivalent aims to be faithful to the experience the reader was intended to have. The downside of formal is that it won't sound 100% natural and cultural idioms can be misunderstood by the reader. The downside of dynamic is that the interpreter is more likely to make errors. My conclusion is it's best to have at least 2 dynamic and 1 formal translations and check all 3 against all important or interesting passages. Doing this will in essence, give you 3 witnesses to the original text. Most of the time they agree and give 3 different ways to phrase the same thought, giving you a deep understanding of it. And when they seem to disagree, praise God because you're gonna discover something as you research why that is.

I agree with the KJV style translation more. Translators should put what is literally in the text as close as they can. Verses like 1 Sam 25:22 , "pisseth against the wall" is important, way better than "male". It helps see the symbolism in David calling these people dogs, who piss on a wall. Modern translations are horrible in making the Bible politically correct.

Thanks for your contribution to the subject. We all have our favorites, but I think the most important thing to ask is… ‘Did you get the message?’

Your video made me think that in Bible reviews and descriptions for sale, they don’t mention how translation is handled, like provided words in italics, original GK or HB in the footnotes, and OT quotes in all caps or in quotes, etc. that would be valuable I think.

Good breakdown

I use the KJV and NKJV the vast majority or the time, and the CSB a little bit too. I read from the NLT with my kids (12 and 9). 2 days ago, we were reading in the flood story, and the NLT read in 8:21 “...because of the human race, even though everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil...” My 12 year old daughter took issue with that, and said “Wait a minute, Dad, not EVERYTHING.” She was right, but what was I supposed to say? Later I looked up the verse in more literal translations, and the language was actually less strong and made more common sense. The KJV says that man’s “imagination of a man’s heart is evil...”. The CSB says, “...even though the inclination of a man’s heart is evil.” More than once in the past, I’ve had huge “ah-ha” moments in the OT in the NLT, thinking I’ve found a gem from the NT in the OT. In excitement, I would compare to other translations and find that the NLT put more than a touch of interpretation in, and there wasn’t actually much to be excited about. I’m switching to the CSB to read with my kids. I’m going to give it a try and see if they can follow. I personally don’t feel the NLT is for me. That being said, a lot of people that know a lot more than me trust it very much, including one of my pastors, who is a PhD. He recommends it often. I think I’ve found that My personal preference is for something a little less interpretive. I want to go as literal as I can and still be able to follow it. If I’m being honest, I do struggle with literal translations sometimes, and I have a major in communication and a minor in English, so I know I’m not the only one.

Thanks from India

I use multiple translations. I have had some pastors use multiple translations while basing off of maybe one or two translations. The pastors who knew Greek recommended the NASB, even though officially they were using the RSV or NIV at that time.

Just ran across this video. My problem with the dynamic equivalence is that, with many passages that can have various meanings, they translate it in a way that eliminates all but their choice, or interpretation, of those words or text. I believe the readers does better to have the option of how to interpret the text themselves, rather than being told what it should mean to the reader. That can create a problem if the translator chooses based on his or her theological bias. People will better learn if they leave a measure of ambiguity in the text and allow the reader to research its meaning.

Had to click, simply the throwback Philly jersey got me, reminded me of the games I had seen at the Vet in the early 80's, as for translations I use parallel study, predominantly NIV, NASB, KJV. I believe reading multiple versions fill in the voids, I do stay away from paraphrased translations.

i read and speak fluent spanish and there are some words you can not translate to english and vice versa and that is not greek or hebrew so if we have problems with spanish to english imagine from the greek or the hebrew man do they have their work cut out for them

Ahh.. I got it! An Interlinear with both English literal and Thought for Thought laid out like a typical interlinear bible.

I use a Bible app to read the Bible because I'm blind. Personally I prefer a formal equivalence translation as my main Bible because you get the actual words and styles of each Bible writer, or as close to them as English allows anyway. I use the ESV as my main Bible translation, it's formal equivalence, but it takes things like our grammar into account. Also as it's in a line from the KJV, the ESV's got a lot of the KJV's traditional poetic flow.

What translation do you as your primary Bible ?

You kept referring to the Fee & Strauss book as advocating a thought-for-thought method of translation. But not once does the book even mention that. As you said, there is a continuum. It's not a matter of Literal vs. Dynamic-equivalence. The NIV, NET, NABRE and CSB are all mediating translations which have elements of both methods. Even the NLT uses more direct language at times when the translators have deemed it to be understandable. Ryken does not know the original languages and he has been taken to task for his writings on the subject of Bible translations. By the way, he and his son put out a book a few years ago in which they used as the primary biblical text --the NLT! You quoted from Ryken's book and made mention of the NLT rendering of Ps. 23:5. That was from an older edition. It now reads "You honor me by anointing my head with oil." Kenneth Barker has put the various methodologies as : 1) highly literal 2) Modified literal 3) idiomatic 4) unduly free I think #2 and #3 are best.

My question would be how do you know what God sounds like what?

I HAVE Some really expensive bibles but almost afraid to use them. Like Holman large print personal bibles.

I think Holman has stepped up their product line with LARGE PRINT PERSONAL SIZE. BIBLES. At a reasonable price. Also Crossway has such a good personal size large print ESV in leather that I bot 2 of them.

The first bible I bought was the KJV after several attempts I put it away and didn’t pick up a Bible again until I bought my NIV. I have to say that not only haven’t I put it down, I’m now transitioning to the ESV and I consult the NKJV and NASB when studying but had it not been for the NIV I would not have even picked up another Bible because the KJV turned me off.

My favorite example of being TOO literal is the Douay-Rheims (original 1609 version) at Isaiah 5.1a: "A vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil." This is word salad. I prefer to retain the original idiom, IF it produces an expression that is still comprehensible to the receptor audience. If not, I'll paraphrase.

When you read "dynamic" you are getting someone's opinion on what is written, not what is actually written. That is the trap many fall into

"Ones Who Pisseth against the wall" Is what I will use from now on LOL........I prefer A more Literal translation Of the Bible, and If there is a misunderstanding of the context, then it would create a dialog with other believers on the subject.

The whole comparison chart that shows Formal Equivalence & Dynamic Equivalence & Paraphrase is skewed. All translations need to shift to the right. The LSB/NASB are not strictly word-for-word. If they were we would have difficulty understanding them. Even Young’s Literal translation is not word-for-word. They call the KJV a formal equivalent translation - word-for-word. Yet the common phrase: μὴ γένοιτο (God forbid) occurring 15 times in the NT, is not in any of those Greek words. Its literal rendering is closer to: may it never be. So translations like the NIV, CSB, and NLT would all move to the right of the chart closer towards paraphrases. Most translations take too many liberties in either expanding the Text or deleting. What do I mean? Words that are deemed superfluous are deleted. For example: “the daughter of my people.” That’s too complex for the NIV (and many modern translations) so they have: “my people” (cf. Isa 22:4, Lam 4:6 plus many more). But the phrase “the daughter of my people” probably expresses affection - “my dear people” - as the CSB has. So if you’re the NIV you’ve deleted this expression not once or twice, but multiple times throughout Scripture. The ESV, LSB, NKJV are good translations in understandable English. And most importantly, they are based on good translation philosophies. In general, faithful translations retain figures of speech and metaphors. Metaphors are to language as salt is to food. The NLT translation should technically be called a paraphrase. I realize they call it a “translation,” but that doesn’t sell. If anyone doubts this then let’s read a chapter in the Greek or Hebrew together and compare it to the NLT. I find better translations in commentaries, but NLT readers are deceived thinking that their reading the Word of God. No, your reading an explanation of the original. Another problem today is people’s level of English comprehension is deteriorating. This may explain the popularity in paraphrase Bibles. In my grandparent’s generation they may have received Latin teaching in school. This would be helpful in expanding one’s English vocabulary. Also, Greek really helps with medical terminology. (I wrote this before watching the video. It was nice to see you talk about Leland Ryken. I didn’t realize he created that booklet. My experience with his work is with books like Words of Delight, where I learned about the importance of genre when reading different works.)

I like NASB. Especially in OT. NOT NIV for true rendition of holy writ.

GOT IT!!! 😊😊😊✝️✡️

I want to read what God actually says in Sacred Scripture. In Jn1:1 it says " and God was the word" See Concordant Version. That's what the Greek says. The orthodox versions are wrong.

Technically the Bible suppose to sound like English. Any interpretor will focus on meaning with any language

God IS NOT a Phillies fan.