When translating the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures into English, there are two broad approaches. There are the literal translations, which are also known as “word for word” translations. These translate every Hebrew and Greek word into a corresponding English word. Literal translations include the KJV, YLT, and NASB. (There are some others, but they are not as well known.)

The other category would be “dynamic equivalence” and “optimal equivalence”. The NIV calls itself “dynamic equivalence”, whereas the CSB calls itself “optimal equivalence”. The NIV has opted out of translating word for word. Instead, the NIV tries to say the same thing as the underlying text, but in English. It isn’t concerned with being word for word. It is trying to be thought for thought. The CSB claims it is the best of both worlds (hence, optimal), but it is not a word for word translation. It is very similar to the NIV but tries to be somewhat faithful to the underlying (Critical) text.

So which type of translation is best? To answer this question, we need to consider how these different approaches impact the translation process and which one offers the most advantages to the reader. When it comes to advantages and resources, the literal translations have a major advantage. They allow the reader to use something called “Strong’s Concordance”. James Strong was an American Bible Scholar who developed a numerical system for every Hebrew and Greek word in the Bible. Each word in a literal translation has a Strong’s Number. This number represents a specific Hebrew or Greek word. This tool allows the Bible reader to cross reference and find that same Hebrew or Greek word in other parts of the Bible. It is extremely helpful in understanding the meaning of a word, the connections to a word, and who frequently used a word.

Because modern translations (besides the NASB, but we have already looked at the problems with that translation) are not literal translations, you cannot use Strong’s Concordance. There is simply no way to know from what word the English was translated. As a result, the Bible student cannot utilize the reference system for further insight. This brings up a serious matter. Literal translations are “big boy Bibles”. They give you the word for word English translation. From there, you can interpret what the words mean. On the other hand, dynamic equivalence and optimal equivalence translations did the interpreting for you (in EVERY verse). This means that every single verse in those Bibles is someone’s interpretation!

Let’s consider some verses that will show us the difference between word for word translations and dynamic equivalence.
John 6:37, “All that” is in the form of neuter in its gender. If “all that” was referring to people, it would have been in the masculine gender. The KJV was faithful to the underlying text. However, the NIV translators interpreted those two words to refer to people. So they changed it to “all those”.
Ephesians 3:6, the NIV translators were operating under the assumption that believers became spiritual members of Israel through the gospel. This position allowed them to claim promises to Israel for themselves. In the case of the NIV, the translators inserted the word Israel due to this flawed idea.
Ephesians 3:8, once again, the NIV translators were operating under the assumption that this mystery Paul was writing about, was not a true mystery that was unknown previously. Instead, it was just something that not everyone understood. Therefore, they substituted the word “unsearchable” for “boundless”. The word they replaced was ἀνεξιχνίαστος, and it does not mean boundless.
Colossians 1:25, the CSB makes its fair share of interpretation instead of translations. In this case, they translated the Greek word, οἰκονομία, not into “dispensation” but into “commission”. These are not even remotely the same words. This is because current mainstream seminaries and pastors have rejected the dispensational teaching within the Bible.

There is one translation we have not talked about yet, that translation is the ESV.
The English Standard Version was published in 2001 and is becoming the popular Bible for pastors and seminary students. The big push for the ESV is that it is the most accurate English translation but is also easy to read. The ESV calls itself an “essentially literal” translation of the Bible. This means it claims, essentially, to be a word for word translation.

To a degree, the ESV does align more closely to the literal translations as opposed to the NIV or CSB. However, there are key moments when the ESV fails to interpret the Bible literally. Remember, it is not the major changes that usually cause a serious problem. It is the small, subtle changes that can completely alter the meaning of a passage.
Colossians 2:10, the ESV chose to not use the word “complete”. Instead, the translators used the word “filled”. This seems like an insignificant change. However, there is an assurance and totality in the word “complete” that accurately reflects the Greek. The word “filled” does not carry the same fullness and realization. This leaves room for a person to fill the need to increase in their standing before God.
Galatians 2:7, the ESV chose not to translate this verse literally. The Greek reads “the gospel of the uncircumcision” and “the gospel of the circumcision”. The KJV translated this literally. However, the ESV translators inserted their bias and replaced “of the” with “to the”. As a result, the ESV makes it sound like Paul and Peter had the exact same ministry. However, we know this is not correct.
2 Timothy 2:15, the Greek phrase “ὀρθοτομοῦντα” refers to making a straight cut. Clearly, within the text, Paul was explaining the importance of rightly dividing between the promises to Israel and the gospel of grace. However, the ESV translators did not accept doctrine. Therefore, they failed to accurately translate the Greek word and replace “rightly dividing” with “rightly handling”. They even omitted “study”, which seems to devalue the importance of studying the Bible. (Maybe they just want you to listen to what they have to say about it?)

Of all these modern translations, the most popular one may be the worst offender. At least the NIV and CSB doesn’t actually claim to be a literal translation. The ESV is advertising itself to be “essentially literal”. Something cannot be halfway or even mostly literal. It either is or it isn’t.

The KJV allows us to do the interpretation without the bias of the translators swaying us. This combined with the Strong’s Numbers provides an excellent study tool. Every Bible student needs a KJV in their arsenal to defend the faith!