The Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in what is known as Koine Greek, namely, common Greek. The Bible has been translated into at least hundreds of other languages, possibly as many as 2,600. Of the billions of people who have read the Bible in the past and today, an extremely small percentage can read and understand the original languages and therefore, it must be translated into the common languages of the people. What principles should guide the Bible translation process, and how did these guide the rendering of the Updated American Standard Version? Generally speaking, there are two different translation philosophies: the formal equivalence and the dynamic equivalent.

Dynamic Equivalence is an interpretative Bible translation philosophy. Examples of such translations would be the CEV, TEV (GNT), NIV, NRSV, NLT, and so on. These translations committees take the literal translation and then alter it by going beyond what was written to give the reader what they believe the Bible author meant in place of the actual words.

Formal Equivalence is a literal translation philosophy, which means they seek to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. Examples of such translations would be the KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, LEB, CSB, UASV.

Some who favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy have made claims that literal translations are strict, word-for-word, interlinear-style translations, asking the question ‘would this enable the reader to get closest to what was written in the original languages?’ This has become a pattern for those who favor a dynamic equivalent translation, to use an interlinear Bible, which is not a translation, to refer to it as a word for word translation, because they know that this phrase is tied to translations like the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, UASV, and NASB. Below is an example from Duvall and Hays in the third edition of Grasping God’s Word (GGW).

Approaches to Translating God’s Word The process of translating is more complicated than it appears. Some people think that all you have to do when making a translation is to define each word and string together all the individual word meanings. This assumes that the source language (in this case, Greek or Hebrew) and the receptor language (such as English) are exactly alike. If life could only be so easy! In fact, no two languages are exactly alike. For example, look at a verse chosen at random—from the story of Jesus healing a demon-possessed boy (Matt. 17:18). The word-for-word English rendition is written below a transliteration of the Greek: Kai epetimēsen autō ho Iēsous kai exēlthen ap autou to daimonion And rebuked it the Jesus and came out from him the demon kai etherapeuthē ho pais apo tēs hōras ekeinēs and was healed the boy from the hour that Should we conclude that the English line is the most accurate translation of Matthew 17:18 because it attempts a literal rendering of the verse, keeping also the word order? Is a translation better if it tries to match each word in the source language with a corresponding word in a receptor language? Could you even read an entire Bible “translated” in this way?[1]

Because these authors favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy, they are not presenting the literal translation philosophy as it truly is. They give you, the reader, an interlinear rendering of Matthew 17:18, and then refer to it as a literal translation, which by association would include the ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and the UASV. Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that the authors J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays are being disingenuous at best, let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translations.[2]

ASV 18 And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour.	NASB 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.	UASV 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
RSV 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.	ESV 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.	CSB 18 Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that moment the boy was healed.

As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations, the ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally equivalent CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays tried to offer us as a word-for-word translation, i.e., a literal translation.

Can the Original Language Text be Translated Perfectly into Any Modern-Day language?

There will most likely never be a perfect translation into any modern-day language. There are a few things that can get in the way of a perfect translation.

No modern language exactly reflects the original language vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore, at times, a literal translation of the Bible can be ambiguous or not fully convey the intended meaning of the original author. When we render an original language word into a modern language, it needs to be understood that we lose some sense of the meaning that would have been conveyed to the original audience in their language.

The same Hebrew or Greek word can have widely different meanings in different contexts. For example, the Hebrew word zaqen and the Greek word presbuteros can be translated “older man,” or “elder,” and both are sometimes used to refer to persons that are advanced in age (Gen. 18:11; Deut. 28:50; 1 Sam. 2:22; 1 Tim 5:1-2)  or to the older of two persons (older son, Lu 15:25). However, it can also apply to those holding a position of authority and responsibility in the Christian congregation (elders, 1 Tim. 5:17), in the community or a nation. It is also used in reference to the ancestors of Israel (men of old, Heb. 11:2), as well as members of the Jewish Sanhedrin (elders, Matt. 16:21), and of the twenty-four elders (heavenly beings) seated on the twenty-four thrones around the throne of God (Rev. 4:4) Clearly, the context will determine what the author meant in his usage of these terms. The translator should always seek to reflect the literal rendering of the original language in every passage, but there will be some rare exception to this rule. Here are few of those exceptions.

Jesus’ half-brother, James writes,

6 καὶalso ἡthe γλῶσσαtongue πῦρ,fire, ὁthe κόσμοςworld τῆςof the ἀδικίαςunrighteousness ἡthe γλῶσσαtongue καθίσταταιis made to stand down ἐνin τοῖςthe μέλεσινmembers ἡμῶν,of us, ἡthe (one) σπιλοῦσαspotting up ὅλονwhole τὸthe σῶμαbody καὶand φλογίζουσα inflaming τὸνthe τροχὸνwheel τῆςof the γενέσεωςbirth καὶand φλογιζομένηbeing  inflame ὑπὸby τῆςthe γεέννης.Gehenna.

James 3:6 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

⁶ And the tongue is a fire, the world of unrighteousness; the tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the course of life, and is set on fire by Gehenna.

We have several great examples of translation decisions within this one verse.

In rendering, “the world of unrighteousness,” older translations and the 1995 NASB use the now dated term iniquity, which means “grossly immoral behavior.” From the verb from which the participle James uses, “staining the whole body” we literally have spotting the whole body, somewhat ambiguous, so we should adopt the lexical rendering “stained,” “defiled,” or “corrupted.” Then we have, “the course of life,” which is literally the wheel of birth (existence, origin).  Finally, translators of the Bible should avoid rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. By simply transliterating these words it will force the reader to dig deeper for the intended meaning of the author.

When dated terms are used (iniquity), they should be replaced with a corresponding English word (unrighteousness) of the original biblical text. The Bible translators can use such literal wording as (stain, defile, corrupt) in place of such ambiguous expressions as “spotting the whole body,” which helps the modern reader avoid confusion. When the literal rendering comes across as making no sense (the wheel of birth), it is best to provide the sense of the original word(s).  A translation of the Greek geenna is best transliterated as Gehenna. An explanation of what the translator is doing in the text should be placed in a footnote, giving the reader access to all of the information. Again, these are a rare exception to the rule that the translator should always seek to reflect the literal rendering of the original language in every passage.

Both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament render the original language words as “sleep” and “fall asleep,” which refer to a sleeping body and a dead body. Below, we can see from the context of Matthew 28:13 that this is the physical sleep.

Matthew 28:13 (UASV)

κοιμωμένων koimōmenōn

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be or become asleep

Matthew 28:13 Updated American Standard Version
¹³ and said, “Say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’

However, in the verses below the context is to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true for those who are asleep in death.

Acts 7:60 (UASV)

ἐκοιμήθη ekoimēthē

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

Acts 7:60 Updated American Standard Version
⁶⁰ Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep in death.

1 Corinthians 7:39 (UASV)

κοιμηθῇ koimēthē

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

1 Corinthians 7:39 Updated American Standard Version
³⁹ A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband falls asleep in death, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 (UASV)

κοιμωμένων koimaōmenōn

Lexical: sleep; fall asleep

Literal Translation: asleep

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 Updated American Standard Version

¹³ But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are sleeping in death, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.

Here Paul is addressing the issue of those “who are sleeping” in death (koimaōmenōn). Koimaō is a common word for sleep that can be used as “to sleep,” “sleep,” or “fall asleep.” However, it is also used Greek, Jewish, Christian writings, and the apostle Paul’s letters as a figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being asleep in death. Paul is not using the common sense of the word here but rather he is using it to refer to the condition of the dead between death and the resurrection.

Psalm 13:3 (UASV)

 פֶּן־אִישַׁ֥ן הַמָּֽוֶת׃ pen-išān

Lexical: lest I sleep the death

Literal Translation: lest I sleep in death

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

Psalm 13:3 Updated American Standard Version

³ Consider and answer me, Jehovah my God;
give light to my eyes
lest I sleep in death,

1 Kings 2:10 (UASV)

שְׁכַּ֥ב šāḵǎḇ

Lexical: lie down; rest; sleep

Literal Translation: slept

Sense: to be asleep in death; the figurative extension of the physical sleep in the sense of being at rest and at peace; the person in the sleep of death exists in God’s memory as they sleep in death; it is only temporary for those who are physically asleep so it will be true of those who are asleep in death.

1 Kings 2:10 Updated American Standard Version

¹⁰ Then David slept in death with his forefathers and was buried in the city of David.

Some have argued that the dynamic equivalent thought-for-thought translations (Then David died and was buried, NLT) are conveying the idea in a more clear and immediate way, but is this really the case? Retaining the literal rendering, the metaphorical use of the word sleep is best because of the similarities that exist between physical sleep and the sleep of death. Without the literal rendering, this would be lost on the reader. Retaining the literal rendering, “slept,” and adding the phrase “in death” completes the sense in the English text.

Nevertheless, there are times when the literal translation can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. James 5:1 is translated, “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under judgment.” The Greek is literally, “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let yours is to be yes, yes, and no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.” This would make little sense. Romans 12:1 is translated, “Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.” The Greek is literally, “Do not be slothful in zeal, be in the spirit boiling, serving the Lord.” This would certainly cause confusion.

A literal translation is certainly more than a word for word rendering of the original language of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The corresponding English words need to brought over according to English grammar and syntax but the translation at the same time must be faithful to the original word or as much as possible for the author may have use word order to emphasize or convey some meaning. In most cases, the translator is simply rendering the original-language word with the same corresponding English term each time it occurs. The translator has used his good judgment in order to select words in the English translation from the lexicon within the context of the original-language text. The translator remains faithful to this literal translation philosophy unless it has been determined that the rendering will be misunderstood or misinterpreted. The translator is not tasked with making the text easy to read but rather to make it as accurately faithful to the original as possible. The translator’s primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place. The translator’s primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator. Nevertheless, extremes in the literal translation of the text just for the sake of being literal must be avoided.

Many modern-day English translations have taken the unjustifiable liberty in their choice of omitting the Father’s personal name, Jehovah, from modern translations of the Old Testament even though that name is found in ancient Bible manuscripts. Many translations replace the personal name with a title, such as “LORD.” The personal name of the Father is found thousands of times in the 1901 American Standard Version and will be retained here in the Updated American Standard Version.

UPDATED AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (UASV)

OUR PURPOSE

Our primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place.—Truth Matters!

OUR GOAL

Our primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator.—Translating Truth!

Why UASV?

The translation of God’s Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is a task unlike any other and should never be taken lightly. It carries with it the heaviest responsibility: the translator renders God’s thoughts into a modern language. The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is a literal translation. What does that mean?

Removing the Outdated

• Passages with the Old English “thee’s” and “thou’s” etc. have been replaced with modern English.
• Many words and phrases that were extremely ambiguous or easily misunderstood since the 1901 ASV have been updated according to the best lexicons.
• Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been translated into correct English grammar and syntax, for easier reading. However, if the word order of the original conveyed meaning, it was kept.

More Accurate

• The last 110+ years has seen the discovering of far more manuscripts, especially the papyri, with many manuscripts dating within 100 years of the originals.
• While making more accurate translation choices, we have stayed true to the literal translation philosophy of the ASV, while other literal translations abandon the philosophy far too often.
• The translator seeks to render the Scriptures accurately, without losing what the Bible author penned by changing what the author wrote, by distorting or embellishing through imposing what the translator believes the author meant into the original text.
• Accuracy in Bible translation is being faithful to what the original author wrote (the words that he used), as opposed to going beyond into the meaning, trying to determine what the author meant by his words. The latter is the reader’s job.
• The translator uses the most reliable, accurate critical texts (e.g., WH, NA, UBS, BHS, as well as the original language texts, versions, and other sources that will help him to determine the original reading.

Why the Need For Updated Translations?

• New manuscript discoveries
• Changes in the language
• A better understanding of the original languages
• Improved insight into Bible translation
• Among other things

PREFACE TO THE UPDATED AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION of The Holy Bible

^[1] J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 166.

[2] It should be noted that the Crossway Bibles’ has names the English Standard Version (ESV) an Essentially Literal translation and the Holman Bible Publishers’ has names the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) an Optimal Equivalence translation.

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION