Theology 1.0: What are the differences between the English translations of the Bible?

 

General differences between translations of the Bible

In this post, I will be briefly examine the differences of the English translations of the Bible. I will assume all translators had good intentions to make the Bible as knowable to the general audience, and will not be throwing shade at translations I disagree with. So let me start:

One of the criticisms of the Bible I do agree with is that we have so many English translations of the Bible. In Bible Gateway alone we have over 60 translations in English! In contrast the same website has 13 translations in Chinese, 5 in Italian and 1 in Tamil (as of 20 March 2025).

So why so many English translations?

Same goal but many approaches
Translating Biblical text is not a new thing. The Jews translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek so that Greek-speaking Jews could read and understand the Scriptures. Similarly, English translations pop up to cater to an English-reading audience so that they may personally read the Word of God.

However, English is a relatively young and fluid language. This means the frequency of usage and meaning of words have changed with time. For instance, let us compare how translations of Psalms 23 has changed over time.

As you can see the phrase "I lack nothing" is more in used now than "I shall not want" in 1611.

The issue with all translations
Thus translators will come to an issue. Should they do a word-for-word translation at the cost of making the Bible more difficult to understand for the modern audience? This approach is known as formal equivalence, and it used by the translators who worked on the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New King James Version (NKJV).

Yet another way is to do complete paraphrasing, at the expense of precise wording. This makes the passages easy to read. This is done by the translators who worked on the Message (MSG) and the Good News Translation (GNT).

An alternative is to do a balance between the two earlier approaches. This is known as the dynamic/optimal equivalence. This approach is favoured by the translators who worked on the New International Version (NIV) and New Living Translation (NLT). 

In conclusion
Translations allow people to understand the Word of God and thus grow in their walk with God. However, all translations have their limitations and it is good practice to read various translations (and in different languages if possible). 

For instance, I generally use both the ESV (the one I used most during Bible study) and NIV (the one I use the most in my personal reading). I also have used the NLT during my university days in England, and NSRV (New Standard Revised Version) from my old church.

I also use the Nuova Riveduta (2006) when I read in Italian, and Chinese Union Version with New Punctuation (CUNPSS or CUVMPS) with the simplified script when I read in Chinese.

Source:
Bible Gateway Blog

Wesly Huff

With Due Respect: Was Jesus cruicified in the Sinai Bible?

 

Recently, I came across popular historian and author Billy Carson. Billy Carson has continually claimed that a Bible discovered in Sinai in 1844 does not state that Jesus was crucified. He also claimed that this "Sinai Bible" was more accurate than the King James Bible.

The event of Jesus's death is central to Christianity. 

But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  - 1 Cor 1:23-24

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  - 1 Cor 15:12-14

Thus it is important to examine whether Carson's claim is true.

What is the Sinai Bible?

The Sinai Bible is a misnomer - among scholarly circles it is known as Codex Sinaiticus. As Carson claims, it was dated to 4th century AD, nearly 1200 years before the King James Bible was compiled.

The Codex Sinaiticus consists of the Greek Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, and the Epistles of Barnabus and the Shephard of Hermas. It is considered to be a landmark document, along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, as it is one of the most complete manuscripts of the Bible.

A translation of Codex Sinaiticus is here, and clearly states that Jesus was crucified.

And they struck his head with a reed, and spit upon him, and bowing the knees they worshipped him. And when they had derided him, they took of from him the purple, and put on him his own clothes. And they led him out to crucify him, - Mark 15:19-20 [Codex Sinaiticus]

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that Billy Carson continues to pursue this claim, and he eventually was called out by Christian theologian, Wesly Huff as since in the reference video below.

For reference

Theology 1.0: How did Christianity come to Ethiopia?

 

After the ascension of Jesus, many early Christians decided to leave Jerusalem to spread the religion. Some Christians eventually came to Ethiopia, but the communities were not significant until the 4th century.

Frumentius and Aedesius, two Syrian Christians, were shipwrecked on the Red Sea coast and taken as slaves to the Aksumite court during the reign of King Ezana. Frumentius gained the trust of the royal family and was eventually freed, becoming a prominent advisor to the young King Ezana. By 330 AD, King Ezana of the Aksumite Empire converted to Christianity. About ten years later, Christianity became the official religion of the Aksumite Empire.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church itself claims to have been established in 330 AD.

The Nine Saints
During the late 5th century, nine Christians (often called the Syriac Nine Saints, even though most of them were not Syrian) decided to do missions across Ethiopia.  

Theses missions also served as permanent centers of Christian learning in which monks finally began to translate the Bible from Greek and Aramaic into Ethiopic so that Ethiopians could read Scripture for themselves. 

Thus Christianity was no longer a religion for the small percentage of Ethiopians who could read Greek or Aramaic/Syriac, but for all Ethiopians.