In giving some pointers to help people in their choice of which Bible to use, I wrote this some time back:

Our generation is so blessed. In contrast to former periods in history where access to the word of God was very rare, there are many good Bible translations available to us in the English language today. How we thank God for this. It is simply a fact of history to say that many have paid the ultimate price (forfeiting their very lives) so that we would have access to the word of God in our native tongue.

Because there are so many translations available to us, if the version used from the pulpit is not the same one we have brought to the service it is often difficult to follow a preacher’s sermon. Therefore, it may be helpful to know that we mainly use the English Standard Version of the Bible (ESV) in our services at Kings Church here in Phoenix. I like it both for its diligent effort to be true to the original text (Hebrew in the Old Testament, apart from a small portion of Aramaic in the book of Daniel, and koine Greek in the New) and for its great readability. Usually one of these things suffers in Bible translation, but this is not the case with the ESV. It is both highly accurate and easy to read, and these features make it a remarkable translation.

Here’s a two minute video where other pastors, teachers and authors testify to this:

Having said that, it is important to understand that there is no perfect Bible translation. Here’s an excerpt from something written by Sean Harrison (an editor for the NLT translation) explaining why this is the case:

… What is translation? What does it mean to represent a text in a different language from the one in which it was written? How should this be done in the most accurate way?

One of my favorite examples of the problem of translation is a joke that Russian speakers of English and English speakers of Russian will appreciate, and almost no one else (some of the funniest jokes under the sun involve translation between two languages). The Russian word for “wristwatch” is the same as the word for “hour of the day.” In the joke, two Russians who speak poor English meet each other on the streets of London. To show off his good English, the first man says to the second, “How many watch?” (i.e., What time is it?). To which the other replies, “Six watch.” The joke ends when one asks the other (and now I’m translating the joke from ESL to standard English), “So, did you finish studying at Moscow State University?” (the elite university where students would learn English to fluency). To which the other replies, “You’re asking?” (i.e., Of course – can’t you see how great my English is?)

Here is the actual text of the joke:

How many watch?
Six watch.
Such much!
For whom how? [said with a shrug]
Finish MGU?
Asking! [said with mock scorn]

The “English” that these two Russian speakers are using is incomprehensible to you and me without a lot of explanation. But it is an exact, word-for-word representation of excellent standard Russian.

Is it really English? A good definition of translation is, A representation of a source language text in a different language, such that native speakers of that target language will understand the meaning of what was said in the source language. By this definition, a translation must actually get across the sense of each statement, not just the words. It must use the target language itself accurately, not some hybrid of the source and target language.

By this definition, the above representation of the joke is not in standard English, but in a language we might call “Russian ESL English.”

Here is a translation into standard English (which, of course, destroys the joke, because the point is that these guys are proud of their awful English):

What time is it?
Six o’clock.
So late!
Depends on whom you talk to, and in what situation.
So, have you graduated from Moscow State University?
You’re asking me? Can’t you see how great my English is?

(And now we see why they say, “Humor doesn’t translate.”) Please note the last sentence in particular: There is no equivalent for it in the “literal text” of the joke. But that sentence is most assuredly part of what the last question means – it is present in the context, and is present in what the speaker means. If it is omitted, part of the meaning might not be communicated, and the translation will be incomplete and inaccurate.

It is an unavoidable characteristic of translation that it involves interpretation. It is significant that the Greek word used to mean “translate” in the New Testament is the same word used to mean “interpret” (????????, herm?neu?; see, e.g., Luke 24:27; John 1:42; 9:7; Heb 7:2). Perhaps you have heard the saying, “All translation is interpretation.”

Here’s the point: In order to translate God’s words from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into any other language, we have to take into account all levels of meaning. There is no way around it: Translation is always interpretation. If the meaning has not been communicated as accurately and fully as possible in the language of the hearers/readers, then the translation is less than accurate.

The NLT was created with all of this in mind. The translators have attempted, as much as possible, to communicate the meaning of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of Scripture into excellent, contemporary English.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult (well, impossible) to include in a translation everything that is present in the context in which the text of Scripture was originally written. As a result, some of the meaning of the text cannot be communicated fully in a translation.

… We should realize that translation in inherently limited, but at the same time that God speaks clearly through translations (and Bible teaching, for that matter). Rather than seeking one “perfect” English translation, we should welcome all translations that seek to honor and glorify God by representing his words in all languages. And yes, we should work hard at making our translations as fully accurate as possible (which must involve the meaning, and not just the words, of the text.) The hope is that, as William Tyndale once dreamed, even a ploughboy (i.e., a worker, someone without training in ancient languages) will know the Scriptures fully and well.