Translation Reviews

Versions Evaluated on This Page:

New International Version (1984), also compared to Christian Standard Bible, 2017)

New International Version (1984 compared to 2011 editions)

English Standard Version (2007)

Christian Standard Bible (2017)

New Living Translation (Second Edition, 2004)

ESV compared to CSB

Today's New International Version

A Review of the New International Version (1984)

Also Compared to Christian Standard Bible (2017)

C. Ermal Allen

The following are my original criticisms of the NIV (1984). This symbol ^ marks the verses in this list where the CSB is an improvement over the NIV.

1. Gen 9:27 – Replace second “Japheth” with “he” (may be referring to God)

2. Gen 27:39 – Remove both instances of “away” (may be an actual blessing – Edom may not have been barren at this time, see 36:7-8)

3. Gen 49:10 – “until Shiloh comes and the obedience . . .” (Shiloh is probably a Messianic title, “Peace bringer”)

4. ^Mg. Ex 3:18 et al. – “Or possibly, Sea of Reeds.” As far as I know, there is no archaeological evidence that any other body of water in the area was called the Sea of Reeds (yam suph). If not, why do most modern translations in the text or the margin identify it as the Sea of Reeds? Why not rather call this body of water by its traditional name, the Red Sea? It has been argued that the “Sea of Reeds” could not be the Red Sea, the latter being a salt water body, for reeds do not grow in salt water. However, the word refers to seaweed in Jonah 2:5. Furthermore, there is another way of pointing the text so that it reads differently, i.e., yam soph or “sea of the end,” as in the end of life (Eccl 7:2), the end of God’s work (Eccl 3:11), the end of a particular study (Eccl 12:13), or the end of a wadi (2 Chr 20:16). Perhaps the name originally referred to the eastern end of Egypt’s kingdom or maybe the end of the Gulf of Suez. If the latter, then the name could easily have been applied later to the entire Red Sea. By the way, if the text should be pointed to read "reed," it should be translated as a singular, not plural, i.e., the Sea of Reed.

That the expression refers to the Red Sea, not some other body of water, is clear in the context in several of the passages that narrate the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness. E.g., Num 33:8-11, after crossing the sea, they traveled three days to Marah (which has apparently been identified on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Suez, viz., the Red Sea–see NIV Study Bible notes on Ex 15:23). (See J. W. McGarvey, “Letter V,” Lands of the Bible, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1881.) In Deut 2:1, the “route to the Red Sea” was “around the hill country of Seir,” easily understood as close to the Gulf of Aqaba, but not so much if they were headed back to Egypt! See also Num 21:4 where it almost certainly refers to the Red Sea.

The first reference to this sea is Ex 10:19. The locusts were driven out of Egypt into this sea. Does this not imply a rather large body of water rather than a group of lakes? (The most common suggestion of an alternate is Bitter Lake, maybe 20 miles in length and very narrow. It would have been an easy matter for the Israelites to have circumvented this lake rather than having to pass through it.)

The one major difficulty in identifying yam suph with the Red Sea is the location of Migdol (see Ex 14:2). At present this city is identified as being in extreme northern Egypt, very near the Mediterranean (and not at all near “Bitter Lake”). The crossing of the Red Sea is said to have taken place near “Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea” (14:2,9). The closest sea would have been the Mediterranean, not only a ridiculous suggestion for Israel’s crossing but one which also does not conform to any of the other geographical data regarding the Red Sea. The name Migdol means tower, so there could have been several Migdols along Egypt’s eastern border, including one at the northern end of the Red Sea.

The definitive identification is found in 1 Kings 9:26 where Ezion Geber is said to be on the shore of the yam suph (or soph). Ezion Geber is known to be on the Gulf of Aqaba, the eastern arm of the Red Sea.

By the way, both the Septuagint (LXX) and the NT (Acts 7:36; Heb 11:29) call it the Red Sea.

5. Ex 32:4,8 – Follow the mg. instead. See Neh 9:18 where the Hebrew for “god” is singular. Note that there is only one calf and that the next day was to be a festival to the Lord. Does this not imply that the calf was intended to represent God rather than replacing him (violating the second but not the first commandment)? (The word for God in these verses is plural, as is usual, and the verb is plural to agree with the subject.)

6. ^Lev 13:2 et al. – Replace “infectious” with “spreading.” (See Study Bible note.)

7. ^Deut 10:6-9 – Move parenthesis close (v. 9) to end of v. 7. See Ex 32:29 and Num 8:5ff.

8. ^Josh 4:9 – Follow mg. Lit., “And twelve stones Joshua set up in the middle of the Jordan . . . .” This sentence structure makes it highly unlikely that the prepositional phrase modifies “stones.”

9. Josh 8:12 – Replace “had taken” with “took.” May refer to additional troops rather than a different count of the original ambush.

10. Jdg 11:31 – Add mg. alternate, “or I will sacrifice.” (He may not have sacrificed her but rather dedicated her to tabernacle service.)

11. Jdg 11:40 – Add mg alternate, “four days to talk with the daughter”

12. 1 Sam 2:35 – Replace “he will minister” with “it (or “they”) will minister” (i.e., the priest’s house or line)

13. ^Neh 13:1 – “On that day” perhaps should be “In that day” – otherwise the dedication of the wall would have been 15 or more years after its completion (vv. 4,6).

14. ^Job 11:8 et al. – Always translating Sheol as “grave” needs another look. Some instances just don’t make sense as the grave.

15. Psa 2:2 et al. – Why the resistance to “Messiah” as the OT version of Anointed One?

16. Psa 51:5 – Present translation says more than the original, “Surely in iniquity I was born, and in sin my mother conceived me.” This does not necessarily mean that he was sinful from birth (cp. 58:3; 71:6).

17. Psa 68:18 – Replace “from” with more literal “among” (cp. Ephesians use of the verse).

18. ^Eccl 7:18 – Follow mg. Probably means that we are to remember both our righteousness and our wickedness. It is good to keep both in mind in order to have a balanced view of ourselves.

19. ^Ezek 45:25 – Omit the comma following “feast” for he is introducing a different feast.

20. ^Dan 6:24 – Not “falsely accused” but rather “maliciously accused.” The charge was true.

21. Mic 5:2 – Replace “origins” with literal “goings out,” probably refers to military maneuvers rather than origin. After all, the Messiah had no origin.

22. ^Matt 2:11 – For tradition’s sake, what’s wrong with “frankincense” as in Rev. 18:13?

23. ^Matt 2:23 – Since the citation here is probably not intended to be a quotation from the OT, make it a more general, “through the prophets, for he will be called a Nazarene.” (No quotes.)

24. Matt 3:11 et al. – Following baptize the preposition before the element should be in, not with.

25. ^Matt 4:15 – Replace “to” with “of” (refers to the way of the sea, i.e., the major highway from Egypt to Damascus – it did not lead to the sea.)

26. Matt 15:27 – Replace “but” with literal “for,” for she is apparently gently correcting him.

27. ^Matt 16:20 – Replace “warned” with “commanded.”

28. ^Matt 26:17 (also Mark 14:12) – Remove “of the Feast” (not in the Greek) for this may be the day on which the leaven was removed, not the first day of the feast (which would follow the Seder).

29. Matt 26:64 – Replace “In the future” with “From now on” (and let the commentaries explain it!) See identical word in Luke 22:69.

30. Matt 28:29 – Follow mg. “into.” I know there is some doubt as to whether there is a difference in koine between in and into but why not let the commentaries deal with it?

31. ^Mark 3:20 – “Then” is not warranted by kai.

32. Luke 5:29 – “Then” is not warranted by kai. This one is important for it affects the chronology. My own study has led me to believe that the meal was given some time later, not on the same day.

33. ^Luke 16:23 – Follow mg. Hades. The Bible seems to distinguish between the two.

34. ^Luke 20:16 – Use more generic “they” rather than “the people” for it was actually the Jewish leaders who objected.

35. ^John 17:19 – Replace “truly sanctified” with “sanctified in the truth” (cp. v. 17)

36. ^John 18:1 et al. – Replace “olive grove” with literal “garden”

37. ^John 19:23 – Replace “undergarment” with “tunic.” “Undergarment” sounds like “boxers or briefs.”

38. ^John 21:18 – Replace “dress” with “bind.”

39. ^Rom 7:18 et al. – Keep “flesh” instead of “sinful nature” and let the commentaries sort it out.

40. ^Rom 8:5 et al. – “Those who are in the flesh relish the things of the flesh” etc.

41. ^Rom 8:8 et al. – “Those who are in the flesh” etc.

42. Rom 8:27 – Makes more sense if it is “that the Spirit intercedes.”

43. 1 Cor 1:7 – Remove the word “spiritual” for he may be referring to more than just the miraculous Spiritual gifts.

44. ^1 Cor 5:2 – Replace “fellowship” with “number.” They could put him out of the local manifestation of the church, but only God could put him out of the fellowship.

45. ^1 Cor 7:27 – Replace “unmarried” with “divorced.” The word translated “divorce” is the noun form of this verb.

46. 1 Cor 8:6 – Remove commas after “God” and “Lord.” He is not saying we have one God (only the Father), and we have one Lord (only Jesus Christ), but that we have one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

47. 1 Cor 11:11-12 – Put parentheses around these two verses.

48. 1 Cor 11:16 – Replace “other” with “such.” (We have no such practice of being contentious.)

49. 1 Cor 11:19 – Replace “differences” with “factions” (more literal; and he is speaking facetiously in this verse anyway).

50. ^1 Cor 11:20 – Instead, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” although the NIV translation gets at the abuse, it misses the point that the reason they met in the first place was to eat the Lord’s Supper (v. 33; Acts 20:7).

51. ^Gal 3:27 – Replace “all of you who” with “as many of you as”

52. Gal 5:16 – Replace “and you will not gratify” with “and do not gratify” – me plus the aorist subjunctive equals imperative.

53. Eph ^2:21 (also 3:15) – In this construction, it should be “every” not “the whole.”

54. ^Col 2:11 – follow the literal “the body of the flesh” rather than “the sinful nature” and let the commentaries deal with it.

55. ^Col 2:12 – “action” or “active working” instead of the generic “power.” It is referring to kinetic power, not potential.

56. 1 Tim 1:12 – Replace “faithful” with “trustworthy.” Certainly he was not claiming to be faithful to God in his persecution!

57. ^2 Tim 1:8 – Replace “to testify” with “of the testimony.” He is probably referring to the message rather than Timothy’s speaking.

58. Tit 1:6 – Replace “believe” with “trustworthy” for he may be speaking more of their character than their spiritual state.

59. ^Tit 3:5 – Replace “rebirth” with “regeneration.”

60. ^Phe 1:14 – Replace “spontaneous” with “of your own free will.”

61. ^Heb 6:4 – Add the word “For” to the beginning of the verse, for it connects what follows with the exhortation preceding.

62. Jas 2:18 – NIV translation makes no sense. Instead replace “But” with “Indeed” and end the quote at the end of the verse.

63. ^1 Pet 1:20 – Replace “chosen” with “foreknown.”

64. 2 John 1:7 – Add the word “For” to the beginning of this verse, for it connects the message of the deceivers with the “command” of verse 6.

65. ^Rev 22:9 – Be consistent in translation: with you, with your brothers the prophets, with all who keep the words of this book.

New International Version (NIV) 1984 vs. 2011

1984 and 2011, A COMPARISON

C. Ermal Allen

This article is a comparison of the New International Version editions, 1984 and 2011. There are many other changes that I would suggest in both editions.

The copy of the 2011 edition that I used was a paperback edition (1260 pp.), God’s Word, which also includes introductions to each book and "The Drama of the Bible in Six Acts."

There are so many changes, thousands and perhaps tens of thousands, that this new edition should be called the Revised NIV. Were they afraid to give it a new name because of the disastrous attempt of the TNIV? Many readers will buy the new one without realizing that it is not the same one that has become the most commonly used. If the desire is to produce a more "modern" up-to-date, even politically correct Bible, fine; but please do not call it the NIV while discontinuing the 1984 NIV. The 1984 does need some correction, but not on this wholesale and reckless level.

The original NIV (designated below as 1984) translation process was overseen by a general committee that at least tried for consistency in translation from the various subcommittees. If that process was used in the latest edition (designated below as 2011), it failed considerably. Of course, words do not always have the same meaning in different contexts, but the 2011 frequently uses different words with no apparent reason. E.g., in Acts 26:23 why change "proclaim" in the 1984 to "bring the message of" when they use the word proclaim in other places (e.g., Acts 28:31 and at least seven other verses)?

Many changes indicate an apparent, undue influence by the New Revised Standard Version (NRS), not always for the better, e.g., 2 Sam 8:3 (monument), 8:18 (priests), 11:3 (was purifying).

Just because "men" can include women does not mean that it always does so, as is admitted in the translation when the context makes it clear that only males are included. Again, just because "brothers" can include women does not mean that it always does so. To translate both terms with the inclusive language (e.g., "people" and "brothers and sisters"), when the context does not imply that both sexes are included, implies more knowledge of the ones included than is warranted by the text or the context. Would it not be better to leave it at "men" and "brothers" with a footnote that the words often include people of both sexes?

Sometimes the desire to be gender-neutral seems to lead to an unnatural translation, such as 2 Cor 5:17, "the new creation has come," where there is no verb for come, and the natural reading would be, "[he is] a new creation," as virtually admitted in the mg., "that person is a new creation."

Thousands of changes are only superficial, with no substantive change in the meaning and many of which are not even an improvement in wording. E.g., how is "You are judging by appearances" an improvement on "You are looking only on the surface of things" (2 Cor 10:7)? Or, is "allegedly from us" really better than "supposed to have come from us" (2 Thess 2:2)? Or, if the "meaning of the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain" (Job 6:6 mg.), why change to the NRS reading rather than the traditional translation? And in Ezek 30:5 the 2011 reverts to the transliteration "Kub" rather than staying with the translation "Lybia."

Those of us who are familiar with and/or have memorized large portions of the NIV now may have a hard time looking up verses in a concordance.

In many cases, the literary quality suffers: e.g., how is "they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy" (Rom 1:31) superior to "they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless"? Or compare the 2011 (Isa 8:20), "Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning," with the 1984, "To the law and to the testimony!"

Biggest problem with these superficial changes: having congregation/group follow/read together in public reading of scripture. Does the "committee" really expect us to throw out all our Bibles and buy new ones? Surely they are not that commercially crass!

The use of the Lord’s people as a translation of saints could be defended on the basis that the Greek text refers to those who are set apart for service to God; however, "the Lord’s people" (and other similar expressions) is a fairly weak way of saying it and does not lend itself to disabusing the reader of the common thought that saints are a special class of disciples who are especially holy.

What is the basis for translating testimony (‘eduth) as "covenant law" in reference to the Ten Commandments (e.g., Ex 16:34; 25:21; Rev 15:5)? Same word in Num 4:5, "ark of the covenant law," and Num 10:11, "tabernacle of the covenant law," but different in Num 10:33, "ark of the covenant" (berith). The Ten Commandments ("Ten Words") were not just the law of the covenant but were the covenant itself. See Deut 4:13; 5:2-22; 9:9; 2 Chron 6:11; 1 Kings 8:21.

There is some indication that the editors of the 2011 reject the Messianic nature of some of the Psalms. See notes below on Ps 2 & 45.

It is good that the 2011 uses "Messiah" in Jewish contexts in the New Testament, but puzzling that the word is not used once as a translation in the Old Testament.

Places Where the 2011 Is Better

Gen 11:31 et al. – Spelling "Haran" as "Harran" demonstrates that this is not the same word as Abram’s brother. (The difference in the Hebrew is in the H rather than the R.)

Gen 48:22 - "one more ridge of land than to your brothers" is more accurate than the 1984 "the ridge of land."

Ex 13:4 et al. – The spelling of the first month as Aviv rather than Abib takes into account the pronunciation of the word rather than a mere transliteration of it.

Ex 13:18 et al. – (Barely better.) Footnotes at references to the "Red Sea" are somewhat better, but still flawed, by saying, "Or the Sea of Reeds," instead of the 1984, "Hebrew Yam Suph, that is, Sea of Reeds." (The 1984 reading implies that Sea of Reeds is the proper way to translate the words, whereas the 2011 just indicates that there is a different way to translate them.) See 1 Kings 9:26 where Ezion Geber is said to be on the shore of the yam suph (Red Sea). Ezion Geber is known to be on the Gulf of Aqaba, the eastern arm of the Red Sea. (For more on this, see my list of corrections for the 1984 NIV.)

Ex 15:1 et al. – The reference to "horse and driver" rather than "horse and rider" is to be preferred, for the Egyptians did not have cavalry but did have chariots.

Ex 24:6 et al. – "Splashed" is more accurate than "sprinkled" (different word, see 24:8).

Lev 23:34 et al. – "Festival" rather than "Feast"

Lev 23:42 et al. – "temporary shelters" rather than "booths"

Lev 23:6 – "stacks" rather than "rows," for each loaf was made from about 7 pounds (or 4 quarts) of flour (if we understand correctly the measure of an ephah and if the translators are correct in assuming that it is an ephah being measured–the word ephah in 23:5 being inferred), and the table was only 3' by 1½', hardly room for the 12 loaves to be placed side by side.

Num 26:65 et al. – "wilderness" rather than "desert," although either word can be misunderstood by the reader unfamiliar with the landscape of this region. The 1984 could conjure up visions of vast, untamed forests whereas the latter is usually thought of in terms of vast stretches of nothing but sand.

Judg 2:16 et al. – Returning to the traditional "judges" is an improvement, being more literal, although the verb judged is usually translated "led," as in the 1984.

Ruth 1:17 – The context favors the 2011 stating that even in death they will not be separated.

1 Sam 2:35 – "they will minister," although changing to a plural, gets the idea right, for it is the new Priest’s house (the Messiah’s disciples), not the Priest, who will "minister before my Anointed One."

2 Sam 21:19 – The 2011 adopts a different pointing and word division of the Hebrew text, bringing it into line with the parallel in 1 Chron 20:5.

2 Chr 6:23 – The 2011, "vindicating . . . innocence," is more accurate.

2 Chr 26:15 – "devices" is probably better than "machines," since such machines were not invented until much later. However, the Hebrew text has three words in a row (including "devices") that refer to invention (all from the same root, "inventions invented by an inventor"), with the latter two represented in the 1984 by "designed by skillful men," which phrase is totally ignored by the 2011.

Ps 8:2 – "strength on account of" is the correct translation, so the 2011 is closer to a literal translation. "Praise" comes from the LXX.

Ps 68:11,12 – The verbs proclaim and divide are feminine, so the subjects are rightly inferred to be women. Also in v. 12, "home" is better than "camp."

Ps 119:32 – "you have broadened my understanding" is more literal (although the 1984, "you have set my heart free," is more vivid and perhaps less clear).

Eccl 7:3 – "Frustration" is more accurate than "Sorrow."

Isa 7:20 – "private parts" is probably what is meant, rather than the 1984 "legs," by the Hebrew text "feet." "Feet" are often used in Hebrew as a euphemism for the genitals.

Ezek 16:26 – 2011 more literal, "large genitals," than 1984, "lustful."

Hab 2:4 – "faithfulness" is more accurate than "faith," although the NT follows the LXX ("faith").

Mal 2:15-16 – The Hebrew in these two verses is quite difficult, and yet the 2011 seems to be more natural in its phrasing than the 1984 even though the latter follows a more traditional translation.

Matt 1:1 et al. – translating "the Anointed One" as "the Messiah" rather than "the Christ" in Jewish contexts helps to identify Jesus with the promised Messiah.

Matt 2:11 – "Frankincense," the traditional translation, is just as good here as in Rev 18:13 (both editions).

Matt 2:23 – Changing the direct quote (which has no antecedent in the Prophets) to a general statement is more appropriate (see, e.g., John 1:46). It also is closer to the grammatical construction in the Greek text, which varies here from Matthew’s usual introduction of a direct citation.

Matt 3:11 – Omitting "with" before "fire" is more exact; and the Greek use of a single preposition before a compound object affects the interpretation.

Matt 4:15 – The "Way of the Sea" is not only more accurate, but it also fits the road patterns of the day better than the "way to the sea."

Matt 5:32 – "makes her the victim of adultery" may be getting at what Jesus meant. The passive voice in relation to the woman is problematical (see the lexicons) for commit adultery, being a transitive verb, does not easily lend itself to a passive.

Matt 10:29 – The Greek text does not have "will," but simply reads, "apart from your Father." The 2011 ("outside your Father’s care") is therefore to be preferred.

Matt 11:24 et al. – Beelzebul (Satan) is more accurate than Beelzebub (Philistine god).

Matt 13:52 – "become a disciple" is more precise than "been instructed."

Matt 15:27; Mk 7:28 – The 2011 is to be preferred for the word but does not occur in the Greek text. 1984 implies that she was agreeing with Jesus, whereas the Greek text implies that she was disputing his claim about bread for the dogs.

Matt 16:20 – "ordered" is the correct translation.

Matt 21:6 – The 2011 is better by making it clear that Jesus was sitting on the cloaks rather than on both donkeys.

Matt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25 – "Give back" is better than the 1984 "give." It implies the concept of paying in return for a service rendered.

Matt 24:30 – "in heaven" is better than "in the sky" for it is probably a reference to Dan 7:13-14 rather than his appearance at the Second Coming.

Matt 24:33 – "it" is better than "he," for Luke 21:31 says "the kingdom of God."

Matt 26:17 et al. – "Festival" is more accurate than "feast."

Matt 26:64 – "From now on" is more accurate and specific than "in the future."

Matt 27:16-17 – Although the textual evidence is fairly weak, "Jesus Barabbas" does seem to be the original wording.

Mk 9:1 – The older "come" is ambiguous. The 2011 "has come" is more exact.

Lk 1:37 – Although the 1984 is an accurate translation, the 2011 may be, in a strict sense, more literal.

Lk 2:2 – Mg. reading is a helpful addition.

Lk 7:14 – Bier is more accurate, though an unusual word to modern ears, but coffin confuses the reader who might think of it as a box containing the deceased.

Lk 10:15 – Heavens and Hades are more literal. The 1984, skies and depths, does not make it easier for the reader to understand.

Lk 16:23 – Hades is correct.

Lk 17:21 – Although both correctly translate the words, the 2011, "in your midst" (mg., in 1984), is more likely Jesus’ meaning.

Lk 22:38 – The addition of an exclamation point is more in line with 22:51.

Lk 24:18 – The word monos is used here as an adjective, so the 2011 is to be preferred.

Jn 1:16 – Admittedly a difficult phrase, "grace for grace," but the 2011 seems to be more accurate in the translation of the word anti, which here means instead of.

Jn 1:18 – The wording ("in the chest of’) does imply an intimate relationship, not just a spatial one (at the side).

Jn 2:18 et al. – signs is more literal than miraculous signs. The emphasis is on the evidential nature of the event more than the miraculous.

Jn 4:23-24 – Although there is no definite article preceding Spirit in the Greek text, the 2011’s understanding is to be preferred. Even in the Old Testament God required worship to be in the spirit, i.e., sincere and from the heart. New Testament worship, however, requires a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Jn 5:10 et al. – In the Gospel of John, the term Jews frequently refers to the Jewish leaders who stood in opposition to Christ. Therefore, it is helpful to the reader to supply the word leaders in such instances.

Jn 6:63 – "full of the Spirit" is probably a better understanding of what Jesus is saying, as a figure of speech where his words are not actually "spirit and life" but that they lead to reception of the Holy Spirit and life.

Jn 7:42 – "descendants" is more exact than "family."

Jn 10:35 – "set aside" is more accurate and more easily understood than "broken."

Jn 14:11; 15:24 – "works" is more literal than "miracles." The difference may be significant, works implying that these actions are just normal and natural for Jesus.

Jn 18:1,3,26 – "garden" is more accurate than "olive grove."

Jn 21:15-16 – The omission of "truly" is more accurate. The 1984 had inserted it to draw a distinction between the two words for love, but Jesus used other variations of words in this section with no apparent distinction: sheep/lambs, feed/take care of. Although there is a difference between agapao and phileo, there is no reason to say that one is truer than the other.

Ac 7:2 et al. – Spelling of Harran is more consistent with both Greek and Hebrew.

Ac 7:36 – Since the Greek text literally says, "Red Sea," the omission of the footnote in the 2011 is to be preferred.

Ac 17:23 – The 2011 is correct in translating "ignorant" (referring to the Athenians) rather than "unknown" (referring to the god).

Rom 1:4 – "appointed the Son of God in power" fits better the word order in the Greek text. The change here represents a switch in the 1984 between its text and the margin.

Rom 1:27 – "error" is more accurate than "perversion" (although their error did result in a perversion of natural relations).

Rom 4:1 – The 1984 omitted the words "according to the flesh."

Rom 4:5 – The 2011 "ungodly" is more accurate.

Rom 5:2-3,11 – These three verses seem to be the only place the word is translated in the 1984 as "rejoice." Most other places the two s are in agreement in translating as "boast." (Why the 2011 uses "glory" in 5:3 is mysterious.)

Rom 7:5 et al. – Although, properly understood, the term sinful nature has something to be said in its favor, too often it comes loaded with so much theological baggage that it is better to revert to the literal flesh and let the commentators and interpreters sort it out.

Rom 8:6-7 – "governed by the flesh . . . by the Spirit" is to be preferred to the 1984 reading, for it implies a submission rather than control. Literally, "the mind (desire) of the flesh . . . of the Spirit."

Rom 8:8-9 – "the realm of the flesh . . . of the Spirit" is to be preferred to the 1984 reading, for it does not imply irresistible control. Literally, "in the flesh . . . in the Spirit."

Rom 12:2 – Omitting the words "any longer" is correct.

Rom 15:19 – "wonders" is better, for the word refers to the impression made upon witnesses.

1 Cor 3:6 – The 2011 "has been making" reflects more accurately the imperfect tense.

1 Cor 4:1 – The 2011 makes it clearer that the mysteries of God are no longer hidden.

1 Cor 6:4 – The 2011 wording is more tactful than the 1984.

1 Cor 10:13 – The addition of the footnote is an improvement.

1 Cor 12:1 et al. – In 1 Corinthians the word spiritual seems to imply a direct relation to the Spirit, so "gifts of the Spirit" is an improvement.

1 Cor 13:10 – The context favors the translation completeness (partial vs. complete).

1 Cor 14:2,16 – The context favors the 2011 "by (in) the Spirit."

1 Cor 14:16 et al. – "inquirer" is to be preferred.

1 Cor 14:37 – "gifted by the Spirit" is to be preferred.

2 Cor 1:23 – The 2011 includes translation of the phrase, "upon my life," that was omitted in the 1984.

2 Cor 2:9 – "Another reason" is a valid way to translate the word "also" here, omitted in the 1984.

Gal 2:2,6 – "esteemed as leaders" fits the context better than "seemed to be leaders," for the named apostles truly were leaders in the church.

Gal 3:22 – The 2011, "Scripture has locked up," is more accurate.

Eph 3:14 – The Greek construction favors the 2011 "every family." (Too bad they did not also correct Eph 2:21, "every building" rather than retaining "the whole building.)

Eph 4:12 – "equip" is better than the 1984 "prepare."

Eph 5:13,14 (different verse division) – The 2011 in the last part of v. 13 (first of v. 14 in the 1984) is to be preferred.

Php 2:1 – "common sharing" helps the understanding of the word fellowship.

Php 2:20 – The future tense, "will show," is correct.

Col 2:12 – "working" is preferable to "power" for the word refers to power at work (kinetic energy).

Col 2:14 – The Greek word does not refer to the legal code but rather to the written record of someone’s debt.

2 Thess 2:9 – The 2011 is probably correct, for the word lie is in a different case ("of a lie") than the three words which it appears to be modifying. It may refer to the same lie that is mentioned in 2:11 (although without the definite article).

1 Tim 1:10 – The 2011 is to be preferred in the translation of the first two Greek words as "the sexually immoral" and "those practicing homosexuality."

1 Tim 1:12 – "trustworthy" is more accurate, and it fits better the context; for Paul had a trustworthy character even when persecuting the church, but it would be difficult to call him "faithful."

1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6 – "faithful to his wife" is probably better, in light of 5:9.

2 Tim 2:25 – The 2011 is to be preferred for it refers only to "opponents" rather than "those who oppose him." The reference is probably to opponents of the Gospel. Those who oppose "the Lord’s servant" might not be opponents of the Gospel but opposed to him for personal reasons. Furthermore some of the opponents of the Gospel may not be opposed to him personally.

Tit 1:6 – The mg. reading is to be preferred, and at least the 2011 includes it as a footnote.

Tit 2:13 – "the glory of" is to be preferred.

Phm 6 – "your partnership with us" is to be preferred, for the 1984, "sharing your faith," in modern vernacular would be understood as sharing the faith with unbelievers rather than sharing with other believers in the work of spreading the faith.

Phm 14 – "voluntary" is to be preferred over "spontaneous," for Paul is actually making the suggestion to Philemon, not leaving it up to his spontaneity.

Heb 6:1 – "be taken forward to maturity" accurately reflects the passive voice.

Heb 11:29 – Omitting the mg., "That is, Sea of Reeds," is better, for the Greek, Red Sea, was never known (by Greeks or Romans) as "Sea of Reeds."

1 Pet 4:4 – "reckless, wild living" is more likely to be understood than "flood of dissipation."

2 Pet 1:4 – "having escaped" is correct.

2 Pet 3:10 – The 2011 reflects the word works, whereas the 1984 omits it.

1 Jn 3:11 – "For" is in the Greek text but omitted in the 1984.

2 Jn 7 – "I say this because" reflects the word for, which is omitted in the 1984.

Rev 5:12,13 – "saying" is correct. (Nowhere in Scripture does it say that angels sing.)

Rev 18:24 – "slaughtered" is more descriptive.

Rev 22:9 – The third with maintains the parallelism exhibited in the Greek text.

Places Where the 2011 Is Worse

Gen 1:6 et al. – The word vault might be understood by the modern reader as a solid physical object and thus lead to the inference that Genesis is teaching that the sky is solid.

Gen 1:14 – Why add "sacred"? Would not the celestial bodies be useful for marking other kinds of time?

Gen 1:27 – It certainly fits better with our understanding that "man" here includes all men and women; however, Paul’s use of this passage (2 Cor 1:4) implies that in some sense it refers only to men (perhaps as a matter of chronological order, see 1 Tim 2:13?) Would it not be better to leave the question up to interpreters rather than rewriting the text so that it clearly disputes Paul? (The third line does specifically mention male and female; why not just leave it at that?)

Gen 6:2,4 – Translating "daughters of the man" (literally) as "the daughters of humans" is linguistically valid–throughout the Flood narrative the expression the man refers to mankind in general–but such a nuance here may be seen as favoring the interpretation that "the sons of God" were not human; whereas there are at least two other interpretations, both of which see the sons of God in these two verses as a special set of humans, just as in the NT where "sons of God" are human, and the daughters of man as a different set of humans.

Gen 9:22-23 – Perhaps "saw his father naked" is not the same as the more literal, "saw his father’s nakedness," for Lev 20:19-21 refers to a man’s wife as "his nakedness." Could it be that Noah’s drunkenness had led to being indiscreet with his wife so that Ham saw her naked? At least that is a possibility that the 2011 eliminates.

Gen 14:3 et al. – Replacing "Salt Sea" with "Dead Sea" in the text rather than the footnote keeps the reader from realizing that it had this ancient name.

Gen 34:2 – To accuse Shechem of rape may be too strong here; it’s possible that he merely seduced her. She is still in his home when the brothers came looking for her (34:26), and there is no indication that she was not comfortable with that. Furthermore, Shechem is still "delighted with her" (34:19), not the usual attitude of a rapist after the fact (cp, e.g., 2 Sam 13:15).

Ex 1:8 et al. – "to whom Joseph meant nothing" is not the same as the more literal "who did not know about Joseph." The latter may imply a change of dynasties that resulted in a change in the historical knowledge of the land.

Ex 6:3 – The addition of "fully" changes the meaning of the phrase. At issue is whether their ancestors had known the name YHVH (YHWH) at all. It is best to leave it with the literal reading and let the interpreters offer solutions to the problem.

Lev 1:13 – "food offering" instead of "offering made by fire"

Num 28:18 – "spirit of leadership" instead of "Spirit"

Deut 3:1 – no textual justification for the words "decorated with"

Josh 5:3 – Replacing "we" with "they" eliminates the eyewitness character of this verse (see also "us" in v. 6). Although there is some textual evidence for the change, it seems to be based on conjecture rather than strength (see Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries, I, 1209).

Josh 7:8; 1 Sam 25:24; 1 Kings 3:17, et al. – "Pardon (your servant)" as a translation of "Please" is an outdated English idiom. The current "excuse me" would be better, but what’s wrong with "please"?

Josh 15:12 et al. – Identifying the "Great Sea" with the "Mediterranean Sea" in the text rather than the footnote keeps the reader from realizing that it had this ancient name.

1 Sam 2:26 – "with people" rather than "with men" is consistent with gender neutral language but it detracts from the obvious parallel in Luke 2:52.

1 Sam 2:30-31 – "your family" eliminates the distinction between "your house" (Eli’s) and "your father’s house" (Aaron’s), Eli’s line being only one side of Aaron’s house; "priestly house" is not referring only to Eli’s line but also to Aaron’s; by these renderings the Messianic impact of the change of priesthood is lost.

2 Sam 3:27 – Not "inner chamber" but rather "gate."

2 Sam 8:3; 1 Chron 18:3 – "Monument" is one translation, but a rare one, of hand. In this context, the traditional control or rule seems to be more fitting. Why would he have a monument at the Euphrates?

2 Sam 8:18 – There is no reason to translate as priests. For one thing, they were not of the priestly tribe, and the parallel in 1 Chron 18:17 indicates some sort of royal position.

2 Sam 11:4 – The 2011 follows NRS, translating the participle as continuing action rather than past action. However, the primary verb and the context both imply a past action. (See mg reading in the 1984 .) Rather than being in the process of purifying herself from her period (Lev 15:19), it is more likely that she purified herself from the sexual intercourse (Lev 15:18) before she went home.

2 Sam 14:9 – The word pardon is outdated in this usage if it is meant to be a polite form of request; and if it is meant to be taken literally, it misrepresents what she is requesting, that she is willing to accept any blame if the king will grant her request.

2 Sam 15:27 – Literally, "Are you a seer?" A "seer" was a prophet. Not, "Do you understand?"

2 Sam 16:10 – The 2011 omits "to me." Literally, "what to me and to you?"

2 Chr 6:41 – "faithful people" is not a valid translation of saints.

Est 1:22 – Although the Hebrew word order is strange, the 1984 is to be preferred, for there are three parallel phrases that refer to using words native to each (1) province, (2) people, and (3) man. It would seem strange that the third reference would be instructing each man to speak his native language as the "prince" of his own house.

Job 1:4 - The 2011 understands "his day" as each one’s birthday, highly speculative.

Job 22:6 – "brothers" probably includes more than "relatives.’

Ps 2:2,6,7,12 – Failure to capitalize "anointed," "king," "father," and "son" ignores the evidence from Acts 4:26 that this psalm is messianic.

Ps 2:12 – Adding the word his ignores the probability that "the Lord" in v. 11 is the Son of v. 12. The whole tenor of this psalm deals with the reign of the Son.

Ps 18:3 – 1984 has the tenses correct (imperfect), which should be translated as present or future, not past.

Ps 23:3 – "the right paths" is too weak. "Paths of righteousness" is more precise.

Ps 37:6 – "righteousness" is correct. Nothing in the Hebrew text to suggest "righteous reward."

Ps 45:6 – Mg. note detracts from the clear NT reference (Heb 1:8) to this psalm as being Messianic. The Messiah is addressed as "God" here, not just the king as God’s representative.

Ps 50:23 – The 1984, "he prepares the way," is to be preferred; the same words in 85:13 are translated, "prepares the way," in the 2011.

Ps 51:7 – The 1984, "The sacrifices of God," is the more likely translation. "Sacrifices" in the Hebrew text is a plural construct.

Ps 52:1 – Although the word translated "hero," (lit., mighty man) is used for heroes elsewhere, the person being addressed here is no hero.

Ps 81:5 – 2011 follows NRS, but 1984 is closer to the literal meaning: "[where] a language I did not know, I was speaking."

Ps 118:24 – The word in the Hebrew text should be translated, "made," not "done." (Different word from that used in 118:23.) The traditional (and almost universally translated), "This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it," is the literal translation. The 2011 is an attempt at interpretation more than translation.

Pro 5:9 – The 1984 "years" (mg. in 2011) is correct.

Pro 13:8 – The 2011 misses the point of the second half of the verse: not that the poor cannot respond to ransom demands, but that they do not receive them.

Pro 20:11 – The 2011 implies that the conduct of children is never pure and upright–influenced by the theory of original sin–whereas the Hebrew text merely says that they are known by their actions.

Pro 21:1 – The 2011 is an awkward translation, perhaps influenced by Calvinistic bias. The traditional translation, as in the 1984, is more likely, being more literal.

Eccl 10:11 – The 2011 opts for "fee" as a translation of a word that is more ambiguous, meaning advantage, whereas the 1984 opts for "profit," a word that can go either way. The proverb seems to mean, not that the charmer will not receive a fee, but rather that his ability to charm will be of no benefit to him if he is bitten before he has time to charm.

Isa 9:1 – "nations" rather than "Gentiles," although identical in Hebrew, is less descriptive of the population of Galilee. And although the words in the Hebrew text here and in Matt 4:15 usually mean "beyond" or "on the other side," Zebulun and Naphtali are west of the Jordan; so the 1984 "along" fits better. (At least once "beyond the Jordan" refers to the area west of the river, Deut 3:25.) The "Way of the Sea" in Israel, the major north-south passage between Mesopotamia and Egypt, was west of the Jordan.

Isa 9:7 – "greatness" (abundance) is a possible translation of the Hebrew text, but "increase" is more likely here.

Isa 45:15 – No reason for the 2011 to insert the words has been, implying that God no longer hides himself. There is no primary verb, but are is a reasonable read, making the sentence a present tense rather than past perfect.

Isa 48:18; 60:17 – The 1984 "righteousness" is the correct translation.

Isa 53:8 – Although the Hebrew is not clear, 1984 is to be preferred, for "his generation" is the object of the verb, not the subject; and "protested" is not likely the correct translation of the verb.

Jer 23:6; 33:16 – 2011 "Righteous Savior" is incorrect. 1984 "Righteousness" is correct. The concept being taught is not that the Lord is righteous but that he becomes our righteousness (see 1 Cor 1:30).

Jer 31:22 – 1984 "a woman will surround a man" (for protection) fits the Hebrew form better.

Ezek 7:17 – Although the Hebrew is difficult here, the word is "knees" not "leg," and the parallel is to limp hands, so the 1984, "knee will become as weak as water," is to be preferred.

Dan 9:24 – Considering that this passage is most probably about the effects of the coming of the Messiah, the addition of the word Place makes no sense. The Most Holy Place would be destroyed, not anointed, by the coming of the Romans in AD 70.

Dan 9:27 – The last word, him, most likely should be translated "it," in reference to the temple and/or the city (as in 1984).

Matt 1:16 – Omitting the word "born" weakens the biological connection between Jesus and Mary.

Matt 1:18 – The footnote alternative, indicating that Jesus had an "origin" weakens his claims to deity.

Matt 1:19 – The removal of "righteous" as a description of Joseph (1) changes his character to a mere observance of the law rather than an inner quality, and (2) obscures the Bible’s relative usage of the term righteous.

Matt 2:2,9 – They may have been referring to the first time they saw the star appear (see 2:7), but they may have also been referring to the fact that they had seen it while they were in their home country (see 2:9 where "when it rose" does not make much sense in the context). "In the east" can refer to either. Why choose a translation that eliminates one possible interpretation?

Matt 10:1 et al. – Changing "evil spirits" (literally, "unclean spirits") to "impure spirits" (frequently in the Gospels and Acts, plus Rev. 18:2 where the same word is translated "impure/evil" and also "unclean") is no improvement for it still misunderstands the OT concept of being "unclean." Someone (or some thing) that was unclean was not necessarily impure or evil; but rather "unclean" referred to those persons or things that were not allowed, for various reasons (e.g., giving birth or touching a dead person), to come into God’s presence (as worship or used in worship) without being "cleansed." The unclean spirits (demons) were both evil and impure, for sure, but neither evil nor impure is what is meant by unclean.

Matt 11:12 – No doubt "forcefully" and "forceful" (1984) have been replaced by "violence" and "violent" because of the context regarding John the Baptist, but in Luke 16:16 both translate the parallel passage as "being preached" instead of "forcefully advancing"/"subjected to violence," and "forcing his/their way into it" instead of "forceful men lay hold of it"/"violent people have been raiding it." Obviously the earlier translation of Matt 11:12 is to be preferred.

Matt 21:5 – Just as in the OT, here the 2011 sees "Zion" in apposition of "Daughter." The more literal "Daughter of Zion" seems to fit better, viewing the city (the people of Jerusalem) not as identical with Zion, the hill upon which the city was partially built.

Matt 21:5 – Translating kai as "and" rather than "even" makes the prophet look like he was expecting the Messiah to be riding on two animals.

Matt 23:30-31 – Using the words ancestors and descendants here instead of the literal fathers and sons loses the ethical connotation of those words. Often a son of someone was not necessarily or primarily a biological descendant but was of the same character as the father. It would have been of no consequence to admit that they were descendants of the prophet killers, but to admit that they were their sons was another thing altogether. They of course did not mean to be saying that they were also prophet killers, but Jesus is saying that their words told a deeper truth than they intended.

Matt 28:19 – The exclusion of the footnote that the word in may be translated into leaves the reader without a clue that such a reading may be more accurate. In fact, there is a difference between the two, in spite of many scholars to the contrary. (See note on Acts 8:16.)

Mk 3:14 – Textual evidence for "designating them apostles" is not the best but is strong enough to leave these words in the text while retaining the marginal reading of the 1984.

Mk 3:21 – The marginal reading, "his associates," makes no sense in the light of 3:31 (or the parallel in Lk 8:19).

Mk 6:47 – The word translated "later that night" refers to evening, after sunset but prior to nightfall.

Mk 15:9 – The traditional reading, "envy," is more accurate.

Mk 16:9-20 – By putting these words in italics, the 2011 lends even further doubt on their authenticity. Many manuscripts do not have them, but that is not the sum total of the discussion regarding their authenticity.

Lk 2:14 – Elimination of the word men limits the possibility that through the Messiah God has shown favor upon mankind in general (in the offer of peace to all). The 2011 limits God’s favor.

Lk 18:11 – Omitting the mg. note, "Or, to," eliminates a valid option that may actually be the intent of the Greek text. Also the 1984, "about," may also be the intent of the Greek text. What would be the point of saying, "stood by himself"?

Jn 1:34 – The manuscript evidence favors "Son of God" more than "God’s Chosen One."

Jn 1:39; 19:14 et al. – For hours of the day, it is better to leave the literal time in the text, as the 1984 does, and if necessary suggest the time of day in the margin, while leaving it up to interpreters to decide what time it is. Although there may be no evidence outside of the New Testament for a different starting point of the day, the book of John uses hours of the day in a way that makes them better to understand when we take them as starting at midnight and again at noon. E.g., in 1:39, if John means that they began their visit at the 10th hour, then it would fit better as 10:00 a.m. than at 4:00 p.m. as the 2011 has. This is especially important in 19:14 that has Jesus appearing before Pilate at the sixth hour (see also 18:28), not possible if the sixth hour is noon. Either it is a scribal error for which there is no manuscript evidence and which would be difficult to explain, or the Greek text means 6:00 a.m. All other time references in John also fit better with a midnight/noon start.

Jn 3:15 – Moving "in him" to follow "life" is not only contrary to the Greek word order–the verb lies between them–but also to the nearly identical expression in the next verse (3:16).

Jn 5:17 – No justification for adding the words, "In his defense."

Jn 5:24 – Although the primary meaning of the word is "judged," nevertheless it can also mean "condemned," which is more consistent with other passages of Scripture (e.g., 2 Cor 5:10) which indicate that the judgment will include all people.

Jn 5:31; 8:17 – Although "true" is a good translation of the word, the 1984 "valid" is more consistent with the concept here. See 8:13-14 where the 2011 retains "valid." The significance of the difference lies in the fact that testimony may be considered true (and is therefore valid) in court (if there is no testimony to the contrary) without asserting that it is necessarily true.

Jn 10:1,6 – No justification for inserting the word Pharisees into these two verses.

Ac 7:18 – "to whom Joseph meant nothing" is weaker than the 1984, "who knew nothing about Joseph." Literally, "who did not know Joseph."

Ac 7:44 – The 1984 "tabernacle of the testimony" is literal and to be preferred to the 2011.

Ac 8:16; 19:5; 1 Cor 1:13,15; 10:2; Gal 3:27 – "into" is more accurate than "in." (See note on Matt 28:19.) The translators acknowledge this in passages that do not have "the name of": Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 10:2; Gal 3:27 in which instances "in" just does not make sense. "In the name of" refers more to authority or reliance upon, whereas "into the name of" refers to one being entered into the account of another (as in a commercial transaction).

Ac 9:32 et al. – "the Lord’s people" is not the same as "the saints." The 2011 omits the concept of holiness.

Ac 13:39 – "set free" should be "justified."

Ac 15:1 et al. – The use of believers or other generic terms (e.g., 1 Thess 4:10, "God’s family") to translate brothers (frequently in Acts as well as in other passages) is grammatically indefensible. Following the apparent reasoning of this 2011, we could just translate every New Testament reference to the saved (e.g., saints, believers, brothers, disciples) as "Christians"!

Ac 18:17 – The Greek text does not say who (the crowd or the Romans) beat Sosthenes. The translation should leave the matter open.

Ac 28:23 – The word witnessed here is a puzzle. In the first place, the word witness means to see or hear something, not to testify ("bear witness to") to it. Furthermore, nowhere else (14 verses) does 2011 translate the word this way but rather as testify, declare, warn, or charge.

Rom 3:9 – No justification for adding the words the power of (following the lead of the NRS). In fact that addition limits the scope of the concept of being under sin.

Rom 3:25 – The 2011 (following the lead of the NRS) changes the Greek word order so that "through faith in his blood" becomes "through the shedding of his blood – to be received by faith," not just a change in style but of the object of faith.

Rom 7:3 – Although the 2011 is theologically correct regarding a woman having sexual relations with another man, the expression in the Greek text is identical to the end of the verse where it is translated, "marries another man." The 1984 is therefore better in its consistency.

Rom 8:11 – Although there is good textual evidence for the 2011 reading, the reading of the 1984 is most likely to be preferred.

Rom 10:4 – "culmination" is a valid translation; however, "end" is more ambiguous, just as the Greek word, telos, is. Better to leave it open for interpretation.

Rom 10:9-10 – Although "declare" (v. 9) and "profess your faith" (v. 10) are valid ways to translate the Greek text here, neither quite says what Paul may be intending. The word literally means to "say the same thing as," and it likely refers to an acceptance of God’s testimony about Jesus. It would be better to keep the traditional "confess," perhaps with a footnote as to its connotation.

Rom 12:1 – "true and proper" just does not get at the Greek, which deals with that which occurs in one’s mind (or "heart"). The 1984 "spiritual" is to be preferred.

Rom 12:3 – The 1984 is to be preferred, for the 2011 implies that it is faith that God has given rather than allowing for the probable alternative that faith is the standard (see Matt 7:2) which God has given by which we measure the use of our gifts.

Rom 15:28,31 – The 2011 "contribution" ( koinonia in 15:26) hides the fact that the contribution was more than a gift of money. It was"fruit" (15:28) borne by the disciples and "service" or "ministry" (15:31).

Rom 16:1 – Calling Phoebe a deacon flies in the face of 1 Tim 3:12 (other interpretations of 1 Tim 3:11 notwithstanding). There is no contextual evidence that the word should be translated "deacon" here.

1 Cor 3:9; 1 Thess 3:2 – "God’s fellow workers" is the literal translation. Cp Rom 16:3,9,21.

1 Cor 7:4 – The 2011 misses the Hebrew idiom in which "not this but this" actually means, "not only this, but also this."

1 Cor 7:17 – No justification for inserting the words as a believer into the text.

1 Cor 7:22 – No reason to insert "to faith."

1 Cor 7:27 – The 1984 "married" and "divorce" is the correct translation. Although neither translation does justice to the latter part of the verse. It should read, "Are you divorced from a wife? Do not look for a wife." It seems that verse 28 has influenced the translation of verse 27, with the translators not wanting to recognize the validity of divorced persons remarrying.

1 Cor 11:10 – The 2011 represents a possible literal reading of the Greek text, but it does not make much sense – what does it mean "to have authority over her head"? (The word own is not in the Greek text.) On the other hand, the 1984 sees "authority" as "a sign of authority," which does make sense in the context. Admittedly this is a difficult passage, but the bent of the 2011 for political correctness seems to be the reason for the change.

1 Cor 12:13 – No good reason to change the literal "into one body" into "so as to form one body." The one body already existed before Paul or the Corinthians were baptized. Baptism is not only into Christ but also into the body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:28 – The 2011 implies that the last three gifts are in parallel construction to "healing" (literally healings, genitive), but they are in the accusative case and therefore not objects of the phrase "gifts of." The 1984 is to be preferred.

1 Cor 14:33-34 – The concluding phrase in verse 33 ("as in all the congregations") fits better as the opening of verse 34. To connect it to God being a God of peace seems superfluous. Again it seems that political correctness has influenced the 2011.

1 Cor 15:32 – "with no more than human hopes" goes beyond the literal, "according to man."

1 Cor 16:22 – "cursed" is a bit too crude for it may imply speech by the Christian, speech that is inappropriate.

2 Cor 1:11 – Although there is good evidence for the marginal reading, "your," the 2011 omits this reading. Paul may have meant that people would be grateful for the Corinthians’ ("your") participation in his ministry which was leading to the salvation of others.

2 Cor 2:14 – Although the 2011, "as captives," (sometimes implied in the Greek word but not expressed) can be an accurate translation, Bauer (Arndt-Gingrich) lists two other usages of the word that do not have that connotation. The 1984 seems to fit the context better, for the saved are liberated, not captives over whom Christ has triumphed.

2 Cor 5:13 – With the quotation marks, it seems redundant to add the words, "as some say."

2 Cor 5:17 – The 2011 adds, "has come," whereas the Greek text simply says, "a new creation."

2 Cor 13:9,11 – "restored" and "restoration" are valid translations, but the 1984 "perfection" is more general. The word here likely means "equipped for service" (cp Eph 4:12 and Heb 13:21).

Gal 1:6 – "to live in" is an unnecessary addition. It changes the natural meaning of the Greek text.

Gal 4:3,9; Col 2:8,20 – More likely that Paul is referring to elemental principles (related to keeping the moral law as a means of righteousness) than forces (spiritual beings). The 1984 is preferred.

Gal 5:17 – The 1984 is closer to the Greek text ("so that you do not do the things which you would").

Gal 5:22 – This is the only place the 2011 translates "patience" as "forbearance," so why the change (from the 1984) here?

Gal 6:6 – Nevertheless is too strong a term for the translation of the Greek word, which can be translated and, but, or even not at all (in accordance with comparable Hebrew usage of "and" at the beginning of sentences in the OT).

Eph 1:10 – The 2011 omits the concept of "under one head." This phrase does not just imply unity but summing things up under the headship of Christ.

Eph 4:11 – Omitting the and between "evangelists" and "pastors" tends to lessen "the pastors and teachers" as the final group (class of leaders) in the series. The Greek construction implies that pastors (shepherds) and teachers are of the same class of leaders although not necessarily identical.

Eph 4:12 – This is one place that the mistranslation of "saints" as "his (God’s, the Lord’s) people" is especially regrettable, for the proper translation would make clear that saints are regular Christian people being equipped by the leaders, not some special, extra-holy group.

Php 2:5 – "In your relationships with one another" – this phrase represents no words in the Greek text.

Col 2:10 – The 1984 "given fullness" is less likely to be misunderstood than the 2011, "brought to fullness."

Col 3:21 mg. – The word is fathers, not parents.

1 Thess 2:1 – The word is not "results" (which can be negative or positive) but rather "vain" or empty results. Therefore, the 1984, "failure," is to be preferred.

1 Thess 2:17 – "orphaned" is the literal translation, but "separated" is the figurative meaning of the word. It is redundant to do both, and it is obvious that Paul is not being literal.

1 Thess 3:2 – "our brother" is parallel to "God’s fellow worker" as in the 1984 .

1 Thess 5:12 – The concept of "caring" is involved in the word here as well as the concept of leadership, but Paul is obviously referring to leaders, not care-givers.

1 Thess 5:14 – Since the context indicates that this verse is addressed to the leaders, to add the words and sisters is implying more than Paul intends. Sometimes "brothers" means just the brothers. The text should not prejudice the interpretation.

1 Thess 5:21 – Since "all" is neuter and "prophecies" is feminine, it is highly unlikely that Paul is telling his readers to test the prophecies. By definition, prophecies are to be accepted as the word of God. They are not to be tested but believed and obeyed.

2 Thess 1:11 – "count worthy" is more suitable than "make worthy" of God’s calling. How could he make people worthy of what they are not worthy.

2 Thess 3:15 – "fellow believer" is not only an incorrect translation, but it misses the point, that they are still to treat this person as one would treat a brother (i.e., a member of the family).

1 Tim 1:18 – The 1984, "so that by following them you may fight the good fight," is nearly (adding only the word following) a straightforwardly literal translation.

1 Tim 2:6 – The "testimony given" of the 1984 is to be preferred to "witnessed to," on technical grounds. As a verb, witness means to see or hear something; testify refers to the act of relating to others what one has seen or heard.

1 Tim 3:4 – The 2011 has a lot of words just to translate, "with all respect." The 1984 is more likely what Paul meant, that the children are to respect their father.

1 Tim 3:11 – The marginal reference to Rom 16:1 assumes that 16:1 refers to the office of deacon. And the 2011 in this verse ("women") assumes that Paul is referring to female deacons rather than the wives of the deacons; but if he is referring to female deacons, why in v. 12 refer to the deacon’s wife and not wife or husband?

1 Tim 6:2 – There is no justification for the 2011, "are devoted to the welfare of their slaves." The 1984 is correct.

2 Tim 2:21 – "special" implies that some Christians may have a special position, whereas the 1984, "noble," simply implies that all should be engaged in the more honorable (lit., "unto honor") work of Christ.

2 Tim 3:6 – The context implies that these women are not just gullible but rather morally weak, so the 1984 ("weak-willed") is to be preferred.

2 Tim 3:17 – The term man of God has an OT background, referring not just to any servant of God. The term should be translated literally so that the interpreter/commentator can deal with its implications.

Heb 2:17 – Omitting the term, the brothers, lessens the implication of his identification with them; and then adding the words, "fully human," (trying to make up for the omission) limits the possibilities of how he was like them as well as adding these words from the traditional creeds, leaving the reader with the impression that these creedal words came from Scripture.

Heb 4:15 – "sympathize" (Gk sympatheo) is much more personal than "empathize."

Heb 6:6 – Omitting the mg., "repentance while," removes an alternate, indeed, a more accurate, understanding.

Heb 9:8 – "standing" is more accurate than "functioning."

Heb 11:7 – What does "in keeping with faith" mean? It is less comprehensible than "by faith" or the more literal, "according to faith."

Heb 12:17 – The 1984 is better, "could bring about no change of mind," for that which he was unable to find (literally) was a change of mind (in Isaac), not a change of action (by Esau).

Jam 4:5 – Although the 2011 gives one valid translation, the 1984 ’s fits the context better.

1 Pet 1:1; 2:11 – "exiles" does not make much sense: from where were they exiled? The Greek word refers to a temporary resident, therefore the 1984 "strangers in the world" is to be preferred.

1 Pet 3:8 – "love one another" is a weak paraphrase of "brotherly loving."

1 Pet 3:14 – Lit., "do not fear their fear."

1 Pet 3:19 – "After being made alive" introduces a chronological sequence not supported by the Greek text.

2 Pet 1:3 – "a godly life" is hardly the same thing as "life and godliness."

2 Pet 1:7 – "mutual affection" is a weak way of saying, "brotherly love."

1 Jn 3:9 – The 2011 omits the possibility that "God’s seed" is the child of God, who remains in him (i.e., God).

1 Jn 5:20 – "by being" is an unnecessary interpolation and may even change the intended meaning.

3 Jn 5 – "and sisters" implies that these itinerant "brothers" (probably evangelists) include women, not necessarily intended by John. Just because the word brothers may include sisters, does not mean that it always does so.

Rev 1:1 – Yes, this revelation was from Jesus Christ, but he is also the object of the revelation; so the 1984 is to be preferred, "of Jesus Christ."

Rev 12:17 – "the testimony of Jesus" is to be preferred, leaving open both possibilities that it is the testimony about Jesus or the testimony from Jesus. See 22:16,20 where the word definitely includes testimony from Jesus.

Rev 18:13 – The phrase, "bodies and souls of men," may include slavery, but it could also include much more (such as leading them astray).

Rev 19:10 – The 2011 is a possible translation, but the reference to the "spirit of prophecy" may very well refer to the meaning of prophecy, that it finds its fulfillment in God’s testimony about Jesus.

Rev 21:3 – Using the word people twice ignores the significance of the two different words in the Greek text, the first referring to mankind (anthropos) and the second to the people (laos) of God, theologically significant words.

English Standard Version (ESV) 2007

A Review of the English Standard Version (2007)

C. Ermal Allen

General Comments

For those who miss the accuracy and literal (word-for-word) style of the American Standard Version, the English Standard Version may be the best modern-language version. For those who prefer the dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) style of the New International Version, ESV is a great companion volume. Where the two agree in sense, readers may be fairly certain that the translation is accurate. Where they disagree, the reader who is not skilled in the original languages may need to check with a commentary. And now that the NIV (2011) has been greatly revised (with some improvements but vastly inferior to the 1984 edition), the English reader may want to replace it with the ESV as the primary translation for study, devotions, teaching, and preaching.

The ESV seeks to be a word-for-word translation, while attempting to be readable in English. For the most part, it is successful in this quest. Some awkwardness is to be expected, although in a few cases it is inexcusably so. For example, Acts 11:26 and Acts 1:3 (see below).

The ESV mishandles several messianic passages. For example, Gen 49:10 and Dan 9:27 (see below). The translation of the latter passage can affect the identification of the “Anointed One.”

Many other places indicate a lack of understanding of the passages: e.g., Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 1:13,15,30 et al., “in the name of” (meaning, “by the authority of”) should be translated “into the name of” (meaning, “into union with” or “into the account of”). (Admittedly, the difference between these two translations is a matter of debate. With baptism, however, there is strong evidence that the word should be into.) The footnote does indicate “into” as an alternate. In John 3:16 et al., the word only is too weak. The word indicates someone who is unique. The NIV “One and Only” better expresses the idea. See below for more examples.

There are also many instances where the ESV is better than the NIV (see more extensive list following this introduction). For example, Ephesians 2:8: “And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,” thus making it clearer that the gift of God is being saved by faith, not the faith itself. Many will like the description of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, as “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” although I still like the NIV's “pledge of a good conscience toward God” (meaning God’s pledge to us).

Regarding the ever-contentious gender issue, the ESV handles it quite well. For example, where “brothers” or “sons” refer to both sexes, the footnote points out that fact. Of course, sometimes “brothers” does refer to “brothers and sisters,” and “men” sometimes refers to “men and women,” but not always. It’s better to leave the generic term in the text while putting an explanation in a marginal note that sometimes it does include females, and leave it up to the context to lead the reader to the proper interpretation. The traditional, generic use of “he/him” is kept, a much less awkward rendering than modern alternatives. “Man” is used to refer to all humanity in those passages where God and man are compared or contrasted.

One of the strongest points of the ESV is its keeping theological terms that are often watered down in other versions. For example, flesh, regeneration, and propitiation occur in the text, leaving it up to the context (or to the commentators) to explain what they mean.

Improved Translation over the NIV

• Gen. 9:26-27. God is more likely the antecedent of the pronouns in “his servant” and “let him dwell” rather than Shem and Japheth.

• Gen. 15:2, et al. “Lord God” instead of “Sovereign Lord” as a translation of Adonai YHVH. The small caps, just as in Lord, indicate that the word is a substitution for the proper Name of God (which even Jesus and his apostles, like the rest of the Jews in the first century, apparently never spoke).

• Josh. 4:9. Hebrew word order favors ESV rendering, which has a pile of stones being set up in the river itself.

• Josh. 8:12. ESV “took” allows for an additional group of men rather than setting up a conflict in numbers (v. 3), as implied by the NIV “had taken.”

• 1 Sam. 1:3, et al. “Lord of hosts” instead of the less specific, “Lord Almighty.”

• Ps. 2:6. “As for me” shows proper emphasis on the first person pronoun.

• Ps. 51:5. NIV was influenced by Calvinistic theology of the translators: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” ESV gives the literal: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

• Ps. 68:18. “Among” instead of “from” This translation is not only more accurate but it better accounts for Paul’s translation in Eph. 4:8.

• S. of Sol. 1:4. “The king has brought me” is to be preferred to the NIV, “Let the king bring me.” It is a statement of fact, not of her desire. (One interpretation of S. of Sol. sees the woman as an involuntary guest of Solomon, while pining for her shepherd boy back home.)

• Matt. 16:20. “Strictly charged” instead of “warned.”

• Matt. 24:29; et al. “The powers of the heavens” instead of “the heavenly bodies,” for the reference is most likely figurative, referring to powers in high places rather than the actual planets or stars.

• Matt. 26:64. “From now on” instead of “in the future.”

• Lk. 1:10. “The whole multitude of the people” instead of “all the assembled worshipers.”

• Lk. 1:15. “From his mother’s womb” instead of “from birth.”

• Lk. 5:11. “And when they had brought their boats to land” instead of “So they pulled their boats up on shore.” These boats were 20-30 feet long, hardly the kind one pulls up on shore.

• Lk. 5:29. “And” instead of “Then.” This is important to the chronology. Matthew’s dinner was most likely some months after his conversion.

• Lk. 6:48. “The rock” instead of “rock.”

• Lk. 16:23. “Hades” instead of “hell.”

• Lk. 20:16. “They” instead of “the people.” The context implies that it was the Pharisees and priests who were taken aback by this judgment.

• Jn. 3:36. “Does not obey” instead of “rejects.”

• Jn. 15:11. “Full” instead of “complete.”

• Jn. 17:19. “Sanctified in truth” instead of “truly sanctified.” Even better would be, “in the truth,” following 17:17. (The definite article in John is frequently implied even when not explicit.)

• Jn. 17:26. “Your name” instead of “you.”

• Jn. 18:1,26. “Garden” instead of “olive grove.” It may have been an olive grove, but the word means garden.

• Jn. 19:23. “Tunic” instead of “undergarment” (the latter word sounding like underwear).

• Acts 2:42. “The prayers” instead of “prayer.”

• Rom. 1:16. “Greek” instead of “Gentile.” (Paul may be referring more to a class than a racial distinction.)

• Rom. 8:3-9. Examples of the improvements in this section, “To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace,” instead of “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace” (v. 6); “not in the flesh but in the Spirit” instead of “controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit” (v. 9).

• Rom. 12:1. “Spiritual worship” instead of “spiritual act of worship.”

• Rom. 13:8. “Another” instead of “his fellowman.”

• 1 Cor. 2:1. “Of God” instead of “about God.” See, e.g., 1 Jn. 5:9.

• 1 Cor. 5:2. “Let him . . . be removed from among you” instead of “and have put out of your fellowship the man . . . .” (Only God can remove us from fellowship. Cp. 1:9.)

• 1 Cor. 11:16. “Such” instead of “other.” The reference is to being contentious.

• 1 Cor. 11:19. “Factions” instead of “differences.”

• 1 Cor. 11:25,26. “As often as” instead of “whenever.” Although either is an acceptable translation of the word, “whenever” may be inferred to mean that it does not matter whether it is often. The evidence, both Biblical and extrabiblical, suggests that the early church universally ate the Lord’s Supper weekly.

• 1 Cor. 12:13. Baptized “in the Spirit” instead of “by the Spirit.” In the New Testament, the Greek word en when following a form of baptize always refers to the element (water, fire, Spirit), in which one is baptized. The preposition hupo is used of the person doing the baptizing.

• 1 Cor. 14:16,23,24. “Outsider” is better than “one who does not understand,” but “inquirer” (NIV mg.) is best.

• Gal. 3:27. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” is more exact than “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” The ESV does not imply, as the NIV does, that others could put on Christ without baptism.

• Eph. 1:10. “As a plan for the fullness of time” instead of “to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment”; ESV does not imply that that time has not yet come.

• Eph. 3:15. “every family” instead of “his whole family.”

• Eph. 3:16. “the riches of his glory” instead of “his glorious riches.”

• Eph. 4:7. “According to the measure of Christ’s gift”–“of the gift of Christ” would be even better–instead of “as Christ apportioned it.”

• Eph. 4:11. “shepherds” rather than “pastors” is more consistent with other places where the word occurs.

• Eph. 4:25. “Members one of another”–“of one another” would be even smoother–instead of “members of one body.”

• Eph. 5:19-21. Translating these verbs as participles rather than independent sentences shows how one is to be filled with the Spirit (v. 18).

• Col. 2:11. “The body of the flesh” instead of “the sinful nature.” (Refers to the old self.)

• Col. 2:12. “Powerful working” instead of “power.” The word refers to power in action, not in reserve.

• 1 Tim. 2:7. “A teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” instead of “a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.”

• 1 Tim. 4:1. “Teachings of demons” instead of “things taught by demons.” The ESV leaves open the possible interpretation that Paul is talking about teachings about demons.

• 1 Tim. 4:13. “Exhortation” instead of “preaching.”

• 2 Tim. 1:8. “Of the testimony” instead of “to testify.”

• Tit 1:5. “Put what remained into order” instead of “straighten out what was left unfinished.” “Straighten out” could imply that things had become worse.

• Tit 3:5. “Regeneration” instead of “rebirth.”

• Tit 3:14. “Good works” instead of “what is good.”

• Phe. 14. “Not by compulsion” instead of “spontaneous.”

• Phe. 15. “Forever” instead of “for good.” The latter could imply “for a good purpose.”

• Heb. 6:4; 10:26; 2 John 7. “For” at the beginning of the sentence, implying a connection between what follows and what precedes.

• 1 Pet. 1:20. “Foreknown” instead of “chosen.”

• 1 Pet. 5:7. “Casting” instead of “Cast.” Participle tells how one humbles himself.

• Rev. 22:9. “With those who keep” instead of “and of all who keep.” ESV keeps parallelism with “you” and “your brothers.”

Poor Grammar or Word Usage

Many words and expressions give the ESV an old fashioned look, rather than following contemporary usage.

• The ESV does not put direct quotes by different persons in separate paragraphs.

• Although technically proper in most instances in using “shall” to represent determination (for example, in promises and warnings), most modern readers will be put off by its frequent usage. It sounds archaic. The usage is in accordance with formal English, but not standard English, which uses “shall” only to express imperatives.

• Proper names (such as Abigail in 2 Sam. 17:25 and 1 Chron. 2:16; and Elath in 2 Kings 14:22 and 2 Chron. 26:2), although spelled in various ways in the original, should be spelled consistently in English so as not to confuse the reader.

• The word dung for human waste, not only archaic but bordering on vulgar, should be replaced with words such as feces or excrement, according to modern usage.

• Contemporary English would say “Mount Olivet” rather than “mount called Olivet,” and “Straight Street” rather than “street called Straight.”

• 2 Kings 14:9; 2 Chron. 25:18. The thistle and cedar were “in Lebanon,” not “on Lebanon.”

• Ezra 4:24. This verse should be in a new paragraph, indeed in a new section, for chronologically it follows verse 5. Verses 6-23 are a parenthetical insert describing two later situations.

• Jer. 13:19 et al. Negeb, though literally a correct transliteration, should follow the modern spelling, Negev. (The beth has a v sound when following a vowel.)

• Matt. 15:37 et al. Although “baskets full” (without the word full in 16:9 et al.) is true to the Greek, basketfuls is the proper English word. (The point is the amount, not the baskets or that they were full.)

• Rom. 6:23. The plural, wages, should be followed by a plural verb, are (although in the days of King James the word was a collective noun and could be followed by a singular verb).

• Jas. 2:15-16. The Greek has “a brother or sister,” but then all the verbs, adjectives, and pronouns following are plural. The ESV changes the plurals in verse 15 to singular but keeps the plurals in verse 16. For the sake of grammar, it would probably be better to change brother and sister to plurals.

• Rev. 6:14. Although the translation is literally correct, it is improper English grammar (although proper Greek) to have singular verb was and pronoun its following a compound subject.

Awkward Renderings

• Gen. 5:22. Enoch fathered Methuselah 300 years? The clause “after he fathered Methuselah” should precede “Enoch walked with God 300 years . . . .”

• Gen. 23:20. The phrase “by the Hittites” is made to modify “a burying place” when in fact it should modify “was made over.” It would no longer be a place for the Hittites to bury their dead. (Regarding the translation “Hittites,” see below on Gen. 23:3 in “Missed Understanding.”)

• Lev. 20:9. “For” makes no sense here. Another translation such as “Certainly” must be meant.

• Jn. 15:19. The second but should be replaced with something like, “since.”

• Acts 1:3. Jesus suffered by many proofs? A better order of words would be, “After his suffering, he presented himself to them alive, by many proofs . . . .”

• Acts 11:26. The last sentence in the verse sounds like the disciples in Antioch were known as Christians before they were known as anything else. Moving the words in Antioch to the end of the sentence gives the better sense, that it was in Antioch that the disciples, for the first time, were called Christians.

• Acts 18:18. The translation, “he had cut his hair,” is totally misleading, for what is meant is, “he had his hair cut.”

• Acts 23:6. Although the text is a literal translation, replacing the and between “hope” and “the resurrection with “in” would flow more naturally. The and may mean even, or that is. The resurrection of the dead is the hope.

• 2 Cor. 1:19. “Silvanus and Timothy and I” is misplaced. It should be in apposition to “we” rather than “you.”

• 2 Cor. 2:17. The last four phrases in the sentence are placed as to make the verse almost unintelligible, especially to someone hearing the passage read. It would read better, “but in the sight of God we speak in Christ, as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God.”

• 1 Tim 3:15. Should say, “the pillar,” even there is no article in the Greek, but neither is there one before household, church, or living God.

Inconsistencies

According to the ESV preface, “to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original . . . .” There was apparently no general editorial board which was able to enforce consistency in translation. This failure is especially noticeable in comparing Old Testament passages with New Testament quotations of those passages–although the preface says, “we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence”–and in comparing parallel accounts of the Gospels.

• Judges 9:9,13. The same expression is translated “gods and men” in verse 9 and “God and men” in verse 13.

• 1 Sam. 15:29. Although “regret” here is the same Hebrew word as in 15:11,35, it should be translated, “change his mind,” as it is in a very similar passage about God in Num. 23:19 (see also Psalm 110:4), in order to avoid setting up a contradiction between 15:29 and 15:11,35.

• 1 Kings 1:2 et al. The word translated “young woman” here is translated “maiden” in Gen. 24:16, where it is emphasized that she was a virgin, and is translated “virgin” in Ex. 22:16-17, Lev. 21:3,14, and the vast majority of other places as well. In fact, in none of the instances would “virgin” be incorrect.

• 2 Chron. 12:12. The words good things are taken to refer to conditions here but to moral qualities in 19:3. The statement is apparently intended to give an additional reason as to why the wrath of the Lord was turned from Judah. What would be the point of saying that the conditions were good? Why not, “Moreover, there was some good in Judah?”

• Esth. 1:6; Jer. 10:9; Eze. 23:6. The word translated “purple” in these passages (“violet” in Jer.) literally means “blue,” and is translated that way in every other instance.

• Matt. 22:17; Mk. 12:14. The word translated “pay” is literally, “give,” just as the ESV translates it in the parallel in Lk. 20:22. (They ask, “Should we give taxes?” and Jesus replies that they should “pay taxes.” In other words they are paying taxes in return for services rendered.)

• Matt. 24:33; Mk. 13:29. Since it is the kingdom of God that is near (Luke 21:31), the correct translation is, “it is near,” not, “he is near.”

• Matt. 26:45. Although the Greek is almost identical (with the exception of an article) with Mk. 14:41, here the translation is, “Sleep and take your rest later on,” while in Mark it is, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?”

• 2 Cor. 8:4,6. The same word, grace, referring to the same thing (this ministry of benevolence), is translated “favor” in verse 4 and “act of grace” in verse 6.

• 2 Cor. 8:10; 9:2. The words translated “a year ago” in 8:10 are translated “last year” in 9:2. (See also intro to 2 Cor.) The chronology favors “last year,” not “a year ago,” for it had been in reality only a few months.

• Tit. 1:6. Since Paul does not require the elders’ children to be believers in the passage in 1 Tim. 3, then it seems best to translate the word “trustworthy” here (as in 1:9), or even “faithful,” (mg.) as it is translated in 1 Tim. 1:12, where it cannot mean “believer.”

There are also some exceptions which were apparently influenced by tradition rather than context.

• Generally uses traditional names according to the Hebrew text, e.g., Ahasuerus in Esther rather than the more common Xerxes; but uses Syria rather than following the Hebrew Aram.

• Ps. 23:6. “Mercy” is translated this way only here. In other places it is translated “steadfast love” or “kindness.”

• Matt. 5:37; 6:13. “Evil” rather than “the evil one” (Matt. 13:38; Jn. 17:15; Eph. 6:16).

• Matt. 16:18. “Hell” rather than “Hades.”

• 2 Cor. 7:1. “Body” rather than “flesh.”

• Rev. 9:1 et al. “Bottomless pit” rather than “abyss.”

Missed Understanding

• Gen. 19:14. It is more likely that these sons-in-law were actually married to two of Lot’s daughters. The text describes them as “sons-in-law who had married his daughters,” not as future sons-in-law. Lot probably had four daughters, two of which were married and two of which were still at home (see 19:15, “your two daughters who are here”).

• Gen. 23:3 et al. The “sons of Heth” in Genesis were probably not identical with the Hittites (although later in time the expression did refer to Hittites).

• Ex. 32:1,4,8,23,31. The better translation is, “a God,” and respectively, “This is your God.” Although “gods” is a possible translation, and supported in verse 4 (and verse 8) by the plural pronoun, note that there was only one calf. They were not worshiping other gods but a calf-image of God. See verse 5: “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.” See also Neh. 9:18 where Nehemiah uses the singular pronoun, “This is your God.” The plural pronoun in Ex. 32:4 (as well as the plural verb in 32:23) is most likely merely a grammatical agreement in number with the word God (which is plural in form but singular in meaning when referring to God). This was a violation of the second commandment (image of God), not the first.

• Deut. 10:7-9. The parenthesis should close at the end of verse 7 rather than verse 9. According to Ex. 32:29, the Levites were set apart (Deut. 10:8) after the making of the golden calf, not after the death of Aaron (Deut. 10:6). Aaron and his descendants were the Levites who were set apart to carry the ark.

• Deut 17:18. “copied from that of” more likely in meaning than “approved by.”

• Judges 11:31. The conjunction can be translated “or” (or at least given as an alternate translation in the footnotes). It is not necessary to accuse Jephthah of practicing human sacrifice–his vow may have been to sacrifice an animal or to dedicate a person to the exclusive service of the Lord (as Samuel was dedicated by his mother). Jephthah’s grief is not over his daughter’s death but over her continued virginity–and thus the end of his family line.

• Judges 11:40. Perhaps, not to “lament,” but to “recount” the story–possibly with the daughter herself for the rest of her life.

• 1 Kings 15:10,13. Although the word is literally “mother,” Maacah was his “grandmother.” His mother was probably not also his grandmother–see 15:1-2.

• 2 Kings 23:20. It is hardly thinkable that Josiah would consider this slaughter to be a sacrifice (human).

• 1 Chr. 13:5. This was probably not the Nile but more likely the Wadi of Egypt.

• 2 Chr. 31:16. More likely, “besides” or “in addition to” instead of “except.”

• Est. 1:22. It is not likely that the command was for each man to speak according to the language of his people. More likely that the command was given in each one’s language.

• Ps. 40:6. ESV here gives “dynamic equivalence,” and perhaps an incorrect one at that. The reference may be to pierced ears, a symbol of lifetime slavery (obedience). See Ex. 21:6.

• Pro. 28:8. Surely he’s not advising against making a profit. More likely refers to exorbitant prices or interest.

• Eccl. 12:13. Adding the word duty is unwise, for the passage is probably referring not to duty but to the essence of humanity. “This is the whole of man,” i.e., fear of God and keeping his commands are what make a human being whole. (A. Campbell)

• Isa. 3:7. “I am not a healer” would fit the context better, for it is talking about qualifications for being a leader.

• Isa. 35:8. Not likely that fools any more than the “unclean” will be walking on this road. NIV is to be preferred, “wicked fools will not go about on it.”

• Isa. 65:20. Not talking about sinners but about living a long time; therefore, better to read, “the one who fails to reach 100 years will be [considered] accursed.”

• Hos. 5:8. The literal, “Behind you, O Benjamin,” is to be preferred. It does not necessarily mean that they would follow Benjamin–why would they?–but may mean that the invaders are moving so rapidly that they have moved past Benjamin while he’s still getting ready. (Note the geographical progression of the place names.)

• Matt. 11:12. Although the ESV translation is technically possible, it fails on two points: (1) It does not agree with the similar statement in Luke 16:16 where the clause, “the kingdom of God is preached,” is parallel to Matt. 11:12, “the kingdom of God has suffered violence,” and the clause, “everyone forces his way into it,” is parallel to “the violent take it by force”; and (2) the context of Matt. 11:12 deals with the kind of person that John was, as opposed to soft-clothed men in palaces, not with persecution or violence. The word biadzetai therefore should be translated as middle ( “forcing itself”) rather than passive voice. The NIV seems to have the better understanding, “the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.”

• Mk 9:41. The expression, “in my name,” can involve more than just “because you belong to Christ.”

• Lk. 2:14. Translating the word men as “those” misses a possible meaning of this statement, that God has goodwill toward mankind and is showing this goodwill by sending them the Christ. The clause could be translated, “among men, toward whom he has goodwill.”

• Acts 13:14 refers to Antioch in Pisidia, but Antioch was not in Pisidia but rather on the border. It is more accurately designated “Pisidian Antioch.”

• Acts 28:13. The sailing terminology is better reflected in “weighed anchor” rather than “made a circuit.”

• Rom. 3:25. The better translation, more literal and straightforward, is “a propitiation through faith in his blood.” The faith is not just any faith, but faith in the efficacy of his blood as a propitiation.

• Rom. 14:22. It is not the faith of the person that is in question here but his belief regarding a particular issue.

• Col. 1:15 et al. The translation, “firstborn of all creation,” though technically possible, loses its force in English as it sounds like Jesus was a part of creation. The word firstborn in Hebrew thought includes the concept of leader of the family (i.e., patriarch), and thus the better translation would be “firstborn over all creation.”

• 1 Thess. 4:16. The translation, “an archangel,” while technically possible, is not to be preferred. The Greek does not have the definite article before archangel, but neither does it have the definite article before voice or trumpet, both of which ESV precedes with the definite article. Since the Bible never mentions more than one archangel, the definite article should also precede archangel in this text.

• 1 Tim. 5:12. Does Paul really mean they have abandoned the faith? Or is he not talking about some pledge regarding their service?

• Jas. 2:18. Although the translation in this passage is technically correct, it would fit the context better and make more sense if “But” were translated “Indeed” and if the close quote mark were moved to the end of the verse. Rather than being a defense by the person who claims to have faith without works, this verse is an additional objection to his claim.

• Jas. 4:5. The context seems to favor the translation, “The spirit he made to live in us yearns enviously.”

• 1 Pet. 3:20. The translation, “were brought safely,” is based on a misunderstanding. The context, v. 21, shows that he is talking about being saved by water, not being safely brought through. The ark saved them from the water, but the water saved Noah and his family from the evil that had enveloped the whole world. Without the flood, no righteous person would have remained after the death of Noah.

• 2 Peter 3:10,12. ESV refers to “the heavenly bodies,” but the text is referring to the elements of the earth (as in the footnote alternate).

Incorrect or Inadequate Translations

• Gen. 3:1. The Hebrew does not have the word other. This verse is not talking about serpents in general but about one creature called “the serpent” who speaks to the woman. It is referring to Satan and may even be calling his name, “The Serpent,” rather than referring to his appearance. At any rate, this creature is not a “beast of the field,” and thus the addition of other is unwarranted.

• Gen. 10:21. Although the translation is possible, Shem could not have been the older brother of Japheth, for Noah’s first son was born when he was 500, but Shem was born when Noah was 502 (or possibly even 503, cp. 11:10 with 8:13). Ham was the youngest (9:24), and so Japheth must have been the one born when Noah was 500. The correct translation of 10:21 must therefore be, “the brother of Japheth the elder” (which is, incidentally, the exact order of the Hebrew words).

• Gen. 19:14. Instead, “ who had married.” Lot apparently had four daughters, two who had married and two who were still at home.

• Gen. 49:10. It is unnecessary to amend the text. The literal and proper translation is, “until Shiloh comes.” This is a messianic passage, with the Messiah’s name Shiloh, which means, “the Peace-bringer.”

• Ex. 1:10. “Escape” is hardly correct, for there is no evidence that prior to this point they had been enslaved. “Leave” would suffice.

• Ex. 11:1. Insert “had” before “said,” for 11:1-8 must have occurred before 10:28-29.

• Ex. 24:6 et al. The translation “throw” is a possible translation, but the word is used as a synonym to “sprinkle” in Numbers 19:20-21. “Throwing blood” evokes a different picture than “sprinkling blood.”

• Ex 25:5; 26:14; Num 4:6,25 et al. – dugong (sea cow) skins rather than goatskins; better translation plus it was obviously for waterproofing.

• Ex. 31:17. The Sabbath was not a sign of creation but rather the creation was the reason for his choice of the 7th day for the Sabbath. Thus, “for” instead of “that.”

• Ex 34:28. 3rd “he” should refer to God (see v. 1).

• Lev 15:3. Should read, “his body is stopped from his discharge,” meaning that the discharge has quit.

• Josh. 5:1. The first person plural (indicating that the narrative was written by an eyewitness), “until we had crossed” has been translated as third person. Although the qere (Hebrew marginal note indicating how the editors thought it should be read) is third person, the first person makes perfect sense and agrees with verse 6, “to give to us.”

• 2 Sam. 3:29. How is holding “a spindle” a curse? The literal translation is “one being strengthened with the stick.” NIV: “who leans on a crutch.”

• 2 Sam 8:18. “chief officials” rather than priests (see 1 Chr 18:17). David’s sons could not be priests since they were from the tribe of Judah.

• 2 Sam. 23:21. The Hebrew translated “handsome” is vague–it has to do with one’s appearance–but it must refer to his size, not his good looks, for the parallel in 1 Chron. 11:23 refers to extraordinary height.

• 1 Chron. 18:3. “Monument” is one translation, but a rare one, of hand. In this context, the traditional control or rule seems to be more fitting. Why would he have a monument at the Euphrates? Also, the next verses favor the “control” interpretation. See 2 Sam. 8:3.

• 2 Chron. 3:4. Scribal error of “120 cubits” should be replaced with “20 cubits” (1 Kings 6:3 has 10; Septuagint and Syriac have 20).

• Ezra 6:3. The word translated “retained” is uncertain in meaning, but “retained” implies that it was the same foundation as the temple of Solomon. However, according to 1 Kings 6:2, Solomon’s temple was only 20 cubits wide (60 long, 30 high), whereas Zerubbabel’s was 60 cubits wide (60 high)–Ezra doesn’t say how long it was. (Ezekiel’s was also 60 by 20, 41:2-4.) Therefore “laid” would seem to be a better rendering.

• Ezra 9:9. Heb., “a wall” instead of “protection” is to be preferred, for it is very probable that under Ezra they had begun to rebuild the wall (which was subsequently torn back down).

• Neh. 2:13; Isa. 27:1; Eze. 29:3. The word dragon is a terrible translation, for the Isaiah reference implies that it is a real creature. (NIV, “jackal” or “monster.”) In Gen. 1:21 ESV refers to the same being as a “sea creature.” In Job 30:29 et al., it uses “jackal.”

• Neh. 8:10. Not “the fat” (see Lev. 3:17). Here the word must mean “richly prepared food.”

• Est. 3:7. “Day after day” and “month after month” are possible literal translations, but the text is almost certainly not referring to casting lots every day for months but rather a one-time casting to select the month and day for the proposed edict to be carried out. Better: “to choose the day and month, and the lot fell to the twelfth month . . . .”

• Job 19:26. Literally, “from my flesh,” can mean, “in my flesh,” but the New Testament assures us that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.” Therefore, the alternate translation, “apart from my flesh,” is to be preferred.

• Isa. 7:6. Better: “let us divide it between ourselves.” They were not just interested in defeating Judah; they wanted to dismantle the Davidic dynasty.

• Isa. 48:17. Although the translation “to profit” is word-for-word correct, it sounds in English like God wants them to make money. The correct meaning is “for your benefit,” referring to the result of his instruction.

• Isa. 53:8. “Generation” is a direct object here, and so the NIV, “Who can speak of his descendants,” is better.

• Eze. 21:27. “Judgment” would be better translated, “it rightfully,” for it is talking about the legitimate heir to the throne of David (the Messiah).

• Dan. 9:25-26, et al. Messiah is the Hebrew word for “an anointed one.” Why not use the transliteration since it is well known, or, at least, as in the Septuagint, “the Anointed One”?

• Dan. 9:27. The word for before “half the week” is uncalled for. The meaning is more likely, as in many other versions, “in the middle of the week.”

• Dan. 9:27. Should read, “poured out on the desolated.” Although the tense is qal, the meaning of the verb in the qal is passive, “be desolated.” Therefore, the participle should read, “the one being desolated.”

• Hos. 3:3-4. The word dwell should be translated “wait (for me),” for the point is not that they will dwell with God, but that they will be without any god during the time of the captivity.

• Amos 4:4. Although “days” is the most common translation of the word, “years” is also a possibility, and to be preferred since the tithe was brought every three years (Deut. 14:28), not every three days.

• Amos 7:2,5. The correct translation is “Who” rather than “How.” The full sentence would be, “Who can stand? Jacob?”

• Zech. 6:13. The translation “And there shall be a priest” sounds like the priest will be someone different from the king. “And he will be a priest” is more literal and better theology.

• Mal. 2:16. The literal translation is, “For he hated divorcing, said the Lord God of Israel, and (or, but) violence covers his garment, said the Lord of hosts . . . .” The context requires that the one who hated divorce is God and that the one whose garment was covered with violence was Judah (v. 11). Traditional translations are to be preferred. Perhaps even better: “For the Lord God of Israel said he hated divorce, but violence covers Judah’s garment, said the Lord of hosts.”

• Matt. 3:11 et al. The Greek word en, following “baptize” should be translated “in” since one does not immerse with but in.

• Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28. The word yet should be translated “for.” (She is not agreeing with him, but disputing his general claim.) In Mark, yet should just be omitted.

• Matt. 22:3,4. The correct forms should be “had been” and “have been” (pf pass ptcp), respectively, since there had been an earlier invitation.

• Matt. 27:3. Judas was “filled with remorse.” The “changed his mind” is too weak.

• Matt. 27:59. (See also Mk. 15:46; Lk. 23:53.) The translation, “a clean linen shroud,” assumes too much. (There is no justification, except for tradition, for adding the word shroud.) The plurals in Luke 24:12 and John 19:40 (cp. also Jn. 11:44) make it clear that the linen was torn into strips, according to Jewish burial customs. Matthew, thoroughly acquainted with Jewish burial customs, would surely not refer to a single piece of cloth without mentioning separate strips. Matthew would be in total agreement with John if the passage were translated “in clean linen.”

• Matt. 28:19 et al., “in the name of” (meaning, “by the authority of”) should be “into the name of” (meaning, “into union with” or “into the account of”) in this and other passages where the notes give “into” as an alternate translation.

• Mk. 3:20. “And he entered a house” is the literal translation. “Then he went home” implies more about the time and the place than the text warrants.

• Mk. 6:22, The word herself is omitted after “Herodias’s daughter.” (Although the meaning of the word is uncertain.)

• Mk. 8:9. The word “people” should be omitted since the other accounts say that only the men were counted in the 4,000.

• Mk. 11:20. The correct translation is “from its roots.” Not only is this literally more accurate, but if the roots were the first part to wither, then it is understandable why the apostles did not notice that the tree had withered–even though it withered immediately (Matt. 21:19)–until the next morning.

• Lk. 19:4. The tree was not a sycamore, but a tree with low spreading branches. “Sycamore-fig” is better.

• Lk. 20:36. “Like the angels” would be better, for humans in heaven are probably not equal to but greater than the angels (see e.g., 1 Cor. 6:3).

• Jn. 2:15. The addition of the word “with” before “the sheep and oxen” is incorrect. The Greek does not imply that the people were driven out with the whip, only the animals.

• Jn. 3:16 et al. The translation “only” is inadequate for this word (so is “only begotten”). Isaac (Heb.11:17) was not Abraham’s only son, but he was his only “son of promise” and his only heir. The word means in a unique sense. The NIV “One and Only” is better.

• Acts 2:9 et al. “Asia,” although literally accurate, referred not to the continent but to the Roman province in western Turkey. It should be translated, “the province of Asia.”

• Acts 2:39. The words “to himself” are an addition to the text.

• Acts 8:22. “If perhaps” would be preferred to “if possible.”

• Acts 8:39. Literally, “for he went on his way rejoicing.” Not a significant difference, but in that case, why not go literal?

• Acts 11:20. “Hellenists” implies Greek-speaking Jews, but the context (v. 19) implies that these were not Jews, thus (Gentile) “Greeks” is to be preferred, per the footnote.

• Acts 11:26. Word order implies that the disciples were called Christians in Antioch before they were called anything else, whereas the intent is clearly to state that Antioch was the first place that they were called Christians.

• Acts 13:14. Antioch was not in Pisidia but nearby. The correct and more literal translation is, “Pisidian Antioch.”

• Acts 13:48. “appointed” is too precise. The word is more vague. A better translation would be “disposed” or “inclined,” which allows for the subject to be God, the person, or either one.

• Acts 16:34. The phrase, along with his entire household, is misplaced (although in the same order as in the Greek) so that in English it implies that only the jailer had come to believe. Although “having believed” is singular, so is “rejoiced.” In a similar construction, verse 33 has a singular verb with a multiple subject, “he was baptized at once, he and all his family,” with it clear that all the members of his family were baptized. Verse 34 clearly means, “And he rejoiced, having believed in God, along with his entire household.” Compare also 18:8.

• Rom. 4:25. The translation “for” (as in most translations) would be more accurately translated “on account of” or “because of.”

• Rom. 5:1-3. The best manuscript readings have “let us” rather than “we.” Paul has moved on from stating the facts of the Gospel to exhorting us to apply those facts into our own understanding and lives.

• Rom. 6:17. The word translated “standard” is better translated “form.” It probably refers to immersion (baptism) as the form or pattern in its symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

• 1 Cor. 1:13,15. Should be “baptized into,” rather than “baptized in.”

• 1 Cor. 2:13. The better translation is in the footnote. The second alternative is more literal, but the first alternative is probably the meaning.

• 1 Cor. 7:15. The translation “enslaved” does not make sense. It should be “bound.”

• 1 Cor. 7:27. In relation to marriage, the word should be translated “a divorce” rather than “to be free.” And the second free should be translated “divorced.”

• 1 Cor. 11:20. Literally, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” (Implying that their purpose for gathering was to eat the Lord’s Supper.)

• 1 Cor. 13:10. “Perfect” should be “complete,” for it is in opposition to partial.

• 2 Cor. 1:15. “Have a second experience of grace” should be “benefit twice.” The former, while a possible translation, could be read to favor the doctrine of “second work of grace.” The context favors a second benefit from his visit.

• 2 Cor. 5:14. The word controls is too strong. Compels, or better, impels, better conveys the thought here.

• 2 Cor. 5:20. Omit “you.” Probably refers to the church’s message, not to Paul’s present exhortation to the church at Corinth.

• 2 Cor. 8:10. It was “last year,” really only about 3 months, not a year ago.

• 2 Cor. 13:9,11. Although restoration is a possible translation, he may be referring to their being equipped for service and growth to maturity as disciples (see Eph. 4:12-13).

• Gal. 5:16. The translation, “and you will not,” should be “and do not.” Greek me (not) + aorist subjunctive = imperative.

• Gal. 6:16. “And” should read, “even,” for they are the Israel of God.

• Eph. 2:21. “The whole structure” should be “every structure.”

• Eph. 4:8. The footnote should add as an alternate translation instead of “a host of captives,” “or, ‘captivity captive.’”

• Eph. 4:11. The word and should not have been omitted before shepherds. The omission misses the point that shepherds and teachers are in the same category.

• Php. 2:7. The word born is an addition to the text. And “human form” should be “in appearance as a man.” The translation “form” is not from the same word as in “form of God” and “form of a servant” (2:6-7).

• Col. 1:15. “Firstborn over all creation” rather than “of,” for Jesus was not created; but he does serve in the role of the firstborn, who has preeminence over the other children.

• Col. 1:23, “all creation” should be “every creature.” (See footnote.)

• 1 Tim. 5:17. The translation, “rule,” is open to abuse, with a connotation contrary to New Testament teachings on the style of church leadership. Other translations of the same word in ESV are “lead” (Rom 12:8), “are over” (1 Thess. 5:12), “manage” (1 Tim. 3:4-5,12), “devote themselves” (Tit 3:8,14). The NIV, “direct the affairs of the church,” better fits the essential meaning of this word.

• 2 Tim. 2:24. The word evil is not warranted by the Greek, and makes no sense for those engaged in Christian service. Timothy was to be patient in times of difficulty, but that’s not the same as enduring or tolerating evil.

• Tit 1:1. The word their is an addition to the text.

• Tit 1:6,10. The word insubordination (insubordinate) speaks to breaking the chain of command in an organization and thus smacks of an ecclesiasticism not known in early church organization. The word here should be translated “rebellion/rebellious.” In 1 Tim. 1:9 it is translated, “disobedient.”

• Phm. 1:5. The translation misses the Greek chiasm. It should be “the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and the love which you have unto all the saints.”

• Heb. 6:6. Although “since” is a valid translation of the participle, a better translation would be “while,” for that would allow the possibility that they might yet be brought to repentance if they should quit crucifying again the Son of God.

• Heb. 10:25. “To meet together” is literally a noun, “our meeting.”

• Heb. 11:6. Not just those who “seek him,” but who “earnestly [or zealously] seek him.”

• Heb. 11:13. “Exiles” is a poor translation for it implies that they had been banished from some place. “Sojourners” or “temporary residents” would be better.

• Heb. 12:17. “To repent” implies that Esau could not repent, but the intent may be rather that he found no chance “for a change of mind” in his father’s granting of the blessing to Jacob.

• Jas. 1:4. The translation “perfect” implies more than the word calls for. It should be translated “mature” in this case.

• Jas. 1:18. The paraphrase “brought us forth” clouds the theological significance of the literal “gave us birth.”

• Jas. 4:5. The translation does not fit the context. Better: “The spirit he caused to live in us longs with envy.”

• 1 Pet. 1:1,17; 2:11. “Exile” is too strong a word here. We have not been thrown out of our country. The word refers to one’s temporary residence in a foreign land. (ESV uses “stay” in Acts 13:17.)

• 2 Pet. 3:10, “and then” is too vague. The literal translation is “in the which,” i.e., “in that day.”

• 2 Pet. 3:10,12. The text is not talking about “the heavenly bodies,” i.e., the sun, moon, and stars, but rather the “elements,” the things that compose the planet Earth.

• 1 John 5:6. The literal “through water and blood” and “in the water only but in the water and in the blood” should be maintained for a proper interpretation. It is most probably an anti-gnostic argument referring to Jesus being the Christ, not just from his baptism to the cross but also prior to his baptism and through his crucifixion.

• Rev. 3:14, “beginning” should be “ruler” since God/Christ had no beginning.

• Rev. 4:7, “ox” should be “calf.”

Errors in Headings and Footnotes

• Ps. 40:6. The note should read, “ears you have pierced for me.” “Dug” is a possible translation, but it makes no sense with ears.

• Heading at Song of Solomon 1:8. This heading limits the interpretation of the book. An alternate interpretation, which suits much of the dialogue better (especially in the dream sequences), has the woman, not yet married to Solomon, yearning for her boyfriend, a shepherd back home. If this is the correct interpretation, the bride is not delighting in Solomon.

• Should be a footnote at Jer. 23:33 that the word for “burden” also means “oracle.”

• Mic. 1:10. There should be a note that the text (kethib) reads, “I have rolled myself in the dust.”

• John 1:39 mg., et al. The marginal references in John fail to recognize that John uses a different method of counting time than the synoptics use. All of John’s references make more sense if the hours were counted from midnight and noon rather than 6:00 am and pm. And 19:14 can be understood no other way, for Jesus was crucified at 9:00 am (see Mark). How could he have been standing before Pilate at noon?

Christian Standard Bible (CSB) 2017

REVIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE (2017)

C. Ermal Allen

I am impressed with the Christian Standard Bible (2017), which is basically a reboot of the previous Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). The CSB is a very accurate translation, perhaps the most accurate one available, in this reviewer’s opinion. It is even better than the ESV, both in accuracy and in smoothness of flow. Its translation philosophy is called optimal equivalence, seeking a procedure between formal equivalence (literal, word-for-word) and dynamic equivalence (e.g., NIV, which seeks to express the thought of the original, while taking into account each word in the original, rather than word-for-word). As a result, the CSB frequently is more literal than the NIV. Regrettably, it does not flow quite so smoothly as the NIV in order to preserve stricter translation or the word order of the original. CSB also translates tenses of verbs more in line with the original than the NIV does. (The NIV tries to keep the tenses more in line with standard English usage. Commentators differ on which way is best. Some see, especially in Revelation, the present tenses, where a past tense would conform more to English usage, to be intentional by the author and thus relevant to the interpretation.)

I frequently checked differences between the NIV (1984) and the CSB, and nearly always the CSB was more literal and/or accurate. In separate articles I will identify many places where the CSB is an improvement over the NIV and the ESV.

A definite plus: the CSB does not try to identify, even in the footnotes, the Red Sea with an unknown Sea of Reeds.

How does CSB handle the gender equality problem? It does so in several ways: (1) man or mankind – humanity, humans, people, or sometimes (when context allows it) just omitting the noun, (2) brothers – adds “and sisters” except where it is clearly men only (probably misunderstands 1 Thess 5:14 as being addressed to the congregation rather than just the leaders in this passage), (3) gender neutral pronouns – uses he or him rather than the plural they or them when referring to a single, unidentified person (one exception is James 2:16), (4) retains male terminology when referring to leaders and teaching in the church, (5) retains masculine terms when referring to God.

Regarding the passages on baptism: the CSB handles them quite literally, even improving

Acts 22:16 over the HCSB reading, “by calling,” by removing the by. It does keep the word pledge in 1 Peter 3:21, but that is a possible reading and is not a problem if it is understood as God’s pledge to grant a clear conscience to the person being baptized. (CSB does give in the margin the alternate translation, “the appeal.” The NAU and NRS translation, “appeal for” is not the most natural reading since there is no preposition such as pros or eis [either of which would most likely be followed by the accusative] preceding the genitive, “of a good conscience.”) In Mark 16:16, the cross references to “baptized will be saved” point to Acts 2:38; 22:16.

I do have some recommendations, however, for the CSB.

Recommended Corrections (Starred corrections would also apply to several other translations.)

Gen 3:1 – “was the most cunning of all” should be “was more cunning than all” – the structure does not imply that “the serpent” was one of the wild animals. (Cp. 3:14 “more than any.”)

*Gen 9:26,27 – “Shem’s” is literally “his” and may refer to “God’s” (vv. 26-27) or “Japheth’s” (v. 27).

*Gen 9:27 – The second Japheth is literally “he” and may refer to “God.”

*Gen 10:21 – Japheth was older than Shem, and so the correct translation is, “Shem, the brother of Japheth the older.” (Shem was born when Noah was 502, cp. 11:10 with 7:11; Ham was born after him, 9:22,24; Noah’s first son was born when he was 500, 5:32. Therefore, Japheth was the firstborn. The order of sons listed does not necessarily relate to their order of birth.)

Gen 15:20 et al. – “Hethites,” an alternate spelling rather than the traditional “Hittites” (“sons of Heth”), may be preferred in Genesis, for the Hittite empire most likely had not yet emerged. However, to continue this translation throughout the Old Testament is unnecessary–several references seem to imply a powerful national force (e.g., 2 Kings 7:6) rather than a mere clan in Canaan. (The CSB rendering, Hittites in Josh 1:4; 2 Sam 24:6; and 1 Kings 10:29; 11:1, et al., may simply be an inconsistency.)

*Gen 19:14 – At least in the footnote, if not in the text, the alternate (more literal?) translation, “who had married his daughters,” should be noted. Translators usually assume that the daughters in question were the same ones that escaped with Lot; however, the expression, “who are here,” in 19:15 may imply that those two daughters were different from the ones who had married.

*Gen 27:29 – “away from” (twice) should probably be simply “from” (i.e, out of), the same word as used in Jacob’s blessing in 27:28. Although the Hebrew can be translated “away from,” the word is more often a simple from (as in 27:28). The translators are assuming that there was no blessing for Esau. Certainly the blessing of the firstborn had gone to Jacob, but that does not necessarily mean that Esau would not be blessed at all. See Gen 33:9; 36:6-8.

*Ex 11:1 – Insert “had” before “said,” for 11:1-8 must have occurred before 10:28-29.

*Ex 32:4,8 – Follow the fn instead. See Neh 9:18 where the Hebrew for “god” is singular. Note that there is only one calf and that the next day was to be a festival to the Lord. Does this not imply that the calf was intended to represent God rather than replacing him (violating the second but not the first commandment)? (The word for God in these verses is plural, as is usual, and the verb is plural to agree with the subject.)

*Ex 34:28 – “God wrote” (see v. 1).

Nu 10:29 – “Reuel the Midianite” occurs twice without reason, resulting in a very awkward rendering. Hobab is called the “descendant of Reuel” and “Moses’s relative by marriage” rather than the literal, “son of Reuel” and “father-in-law of Moses.” (Apparently the translators did not think it possible that Jethro and Reuel were two names for the same person. Also, CSB has apparently abandoned the traditional possessive of names that have more than one s, e.g., Moses’ and Jesus’).

Nu 29:12 – “you do not do any daily work” should be identical with the corresponding clause in 29:2,35.

Nu 29:19 – “its grain and drink and their drink offerings” should read, “its grain offering and their drink offerings.” This verse in the Hebrew does read slightly different from the parallel phrases in vv. 16,22,25,28,34, and 38, all of which read, “its grain offering and its drink offering.” (Strangely, v. 31 reads, “its drink offerings.”) Why the Hebrew has these differences is a mystery, but the CSB additional “and drink” in 29:19 makes no sense.

Josh 5:1 – The first person plural (indicating that the narrative was written by an eyewitness), “until we had crossed” has been translated as third person. Although the qere–marginal note in the Hebrew manuscript indicating how the Jewish scholars thought it should be read–is third person, the first person makes perfect sense and agrees with verse 6, “to give to us.”

*Josh 8:12 – Replace “had taken” with “took.” May refer to additional troops rather than a different count of the original ambush.

*Jdg 11:31 – There is no evidence that the Israelites at this time (especially those who worshiped the Lord) would think that a human sacrifice would be a pleasing sacrifice to God. It makes more sense to translate “whatever” rather than “whoever,” and the conjunction “or” rather than “and.” In other words, he was vowing to sacrifice an animal that might be the first to greet him or to dedicate to the tabernacle service anyone (thinking it would be a servant) who was the first. He would have been devastated for it to be his daughter since, she being his only child, would thus have to live a celibate life without producing any offspring to continue the family line. Notice that she did not want to mourn over her loss of life but rather her (commitment to perpetual) virginity

*Jdg 11:40 – Add fn alternative, “four days to talk with the daughter.”

Ruth 1:18 – awkward rendering here, for in our idiom, “stopped talking to her” would imply that Naomi was angry with her. Instead, she accepted Ruth’s decision and dropped the matter.

*1 Sam 2:35 – “he will walk” should be “it will walk,” referring to the Messiah’s (Anointed One’s) dynasty (spiritual family) who would “walk before him for all time.” This prophecy foretells the rise of the “order of Melchizedek” and the demise of the Aaronic (Eli’s forefather, 2:27-28) priesthood.

*1 Sam 13:1-2 – Or, following Josephus, “and when he had reigned two years over Israel, he chose . . . .” The Hebrew text does not say how old he was or the total length of his reign. The Septuagint (Greek) version omits verse 1 entirely.

*2 Sam 3:29 – How is working a spindle a curse? The literal translation is “one being strengthened with the stick.” NIV, LXX (Greek translation): “who leans on a crutch.”

*2 Sam 7:7 – Although the Hebrew word most often is translated “tribes,” it primarily refers to a rod (as in 7:14; Ps 23:4), and thus a few times it is translated “scepter” (as in Gen 49:10, in parallel to “ruler’s staff”). Since a scepter is the symbol of ruling authority, the word can also refer to a ruler, which best suits the context in this verse, speaking of one “whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel.” (Cp 7:11, “I ordered [commanded] judges to be over my people Israel.”)

1 Ki 13:3 – Neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint has the word now.

2 Chr 12:12 – Although “conditions were good in Judah” is a possible translation, and is consistent with some other versions, the NIV (1984) rendering, “there was some good in Judah,” is to be preferred, and would be consistent with the CSB translation in 2 Chr 19:3, “some good is found in you,” the reason being given that Jehoshaphat had “eradicated the Asherah poles from the land” and had “decided to seek God.” The Hebrew has identical wording in both verses, “good things.” The “good” is obviously intended to refer to moral conditions rather than economic ones.

2 Chr 36:23 – “temple” should be “house” (although he was talking about a temple) in order to maintain consistency with Ezra 1:2.

*Ezra 6:3 – The word translated “retained” is uncertain in meaning, but “retained” implies that it was the same foundation as the temple of Solomon. However, according to 1 Kings 6:2, Solomon’s temple was only 20 cubits wide (60 long, 30 high), whereas Zerubbabel’s was 60 cubits wide (60 high)–Ezra doesn’t say how long it was. (Ezekiel’s was also 60 by 20, Eze 41:2-4.) Therefore “laid” would seem to be a better rendering.

*Est 1:6 – add fn to “violet”: or, “blue” (the authorities disagree).

*Est 1:22 – The verse closes with the words, “and speaking in the language of his people.” It seems most likely that it is referring to the language of the proclamation rather than instructing every man to speak in the language of his people, for the latter makes no sense in the context. Therefore, “and, speaking . . . people, that every man . . . .”

Job 19:26 – Literally, “from my flesh,” can mean, “in my flesh,” but the New Testament assures us that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.” Therefore, the alternate translation, “apart from my flesh,” is to be preferred.

Psa 3:7 – lit., “for you struck . . . broke”

*Psa 51:5 – lit., “Indeed, in iniquity [guilt is possible but less likely] I was born, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Not referring literally to his spiritual state at birth but to the fact that he had been a sinner all his life–not necessarily from birth. Compare 58:3; 71:6.)

*Psa 68:18 – Replace “from” with more literal “among” (cp. Ephesians use of the verse).

*Eccl 12:13 – lit., “this is the whole of man” (perhaps meaning that a human being cannot be whole apart from obedience to God).

*S of S – lit., “the king has brought me”

S of S – “bed” could refer to a “litter” (upon which he was carried).

*Isa 7:6 – Better: “let us divide it between ourselves.” They were not just interested in defeating Judah; they wanted to dismantle the Davidic dynasty.

Isa 7:8-9 – “chief city,” lit., “head,” not, in this case, the “capital,” for the names are individuals, not cities. Therefore, omit city.

Isa 23:12 – “ravished young woman” is an interpretation, lit., “crushed virgin”

Isa 26:12 – “work” should be plural.

Isa 38:21 – “his infected skin” should perhaps be “the affected skin” since the concept of infection had not yet been discovered. Literally, “the boil.”

Isa 57:1 – “because of” should be translated, “from before [or from the face of].”

Eze 3:26 – “be a mediator for” should be “rebuke.”

Dan 9:27 – Although the tense is qal, the meaning of the verb in the qal is passive, “be desolated.” Therefore, the participle should read, “the one being desolated.”

*Hos 3:3 – Instead of “live with,” the alternate translation, “wait for,” fits the context better.

*Amos 4:4 – “third year” – Although the usual translation of yamim is “days,” the word (in the plural) can also be translated “year” (e.g., 1 Sam. 27:7, “whole year”) which is more likely when comparing this verse with Deut 14:8.

*Amos 7:2,5. The correct translation is “Who” rather than “How.” The full sentence would be, “Who can stand? Jacob?”

*Mic 5:2 – “origin” is literally, “goings forth,” in this case probably referring to military maneuvers. (Refers to Messiah, so “origin” is definitely not correct.)

Zech 6:13 – “There will also” should read, “and he will.” (The king and priest will be the same person, thus uniting the royal and priestly lines.)

*Mt 6:23 – “the” instead of “that,” for that makes no sense; why would light becoming darkness be any darker than darkness? The point is that if even the light is darkness, then that which was already darkness would be even darker.

Mt 8:7 – The fn reading is correct.

Mt 9:20-21; 14:36; Mk 6:56 (also Lk 22:36) – “robe” should read “cloak” or “mantle,” a shorter garment (worn over the tunic) than implied in the word robe. The word for longer robes was never used of Jesus’ clothing. In fact, one of his criticisms of the religious leaders was that they liked to wear long, flowing robes. Obviously he did not wear one of those. Other words for such a long robe refer to the garment placed on him by Herod and the robe in John’s vision in Revelation 1:13. (The robe placed on him by the soldiers during his trial referred to a robe like the ones worn by them.)

Mt 11:1 heading – “doubt” is interpretive, there is an alternate interpretation available.

*Mt 15:27 – “yet” should be “for” or “certainly”–she is disagreeing with his claim–Yes, they do!– and arguing for her case.

*Mt 16:19; 18:18 – “will have been” was the correct translation in classical Greek, but it has not been shown to have the literal meaning of the perfect tense (“have been”) when in a vivid future conditional clause (as in these verses) in Koine.

*Mt 18:22 – The reading 70 times 7 is an incorrect translation, for the word-ending in Greek for “times” refers to a number of times (in this case, 70, then adding the word seven) but not (as it can in English) to the multiplication function in math.

*Mt 21:5 – should read “even on a colt,” for obviously he did not ride on both.

*Mt 22:3,4,8 – “had been invited” and “have been invited” (pf pass ptcp), respectively, would be more accurate since there had been an earlier invitation.

*Mt 22:17,21; Mk 12:14,17; Lk 20:22,25 – switch “give” and “pay” (per Greek text).

*Mt 23:30-32 – The literal fathers and sons should be retained, for he is using them in a moral sense, i.e., playing on the fact that sons often imitate their fathers.

*Mt 24:15 (also Mk 13:14) – parenthetical remark should be in red (in red-letter editions), for it is not a reference to the reader of the Gospel but rather Jesus’ instruction to the reader of Daniel. In all editions, it should be included within the quotation marks.

*Mt 24:33; Mk 13:29 – “it is near,” not “he” or “summer” (fn), as is clear in the parallel in Lk 21:31 where it is stated that “the kingdom of God is near.”

*Mt 26:64 – “in the future” is too vague; “from now on” (as in 26:29 and Lk 22:69) is the literal translation.

*Mt 28:19; Acts 8:16; 1 Corinthians 1:13 – in the name of should be into the name of. (Many dispute that there is a difference between in [always used with the dative] and into [always with the accusative], but the usage in the NT in relation to the word baptize implies such a difference. “In the name of” means by the authority of, whereas “into the name of” means into one’s account or into a relationship with.) The preposition is correctly translated (“into”) in Acts 19:5; Romans 6:3 (“into Christ Jesus”); 1 Corinthians 10:2 (“into Moses”); Galatians 3:27 (“into Christ”).

*Mk 1:8 et al. (many places) – “with” (en) would be more properly translated in (see fn), since baptism refers to immersion. Following a form of baptizo, this preposition always refers to the medium in which one is being baptized (water, fire, Spirit).

*Lk 2:14 – Or, “peace on earth to humankind, whom he favors.” (All people are the intended objects of his peace and goodwill, i.e., he desires salvation for everyone. Cp. John 3:16; 1 Tim 4:10.)

Lk 4:4 – “will not”

*Lk 5:29 – “Then” should be “And” (or “Later.” Literal accuracy here is significant for understanding the chronological sequence, for almost certainly this dinner occurred at a later time.)

*Lk 19:4 – The tree was not a sycamore, but a tree with low spreading branches. “Sycamore-fig” is better.

*Lk 20:36 – “Indeed” (a valid translation though not the most common one) would seem to fit the context better than “for.”

Lk 22:17 – “share” is literally “divide” or “distribute,” thus implying (probably) that they were to pour from his cup into theirs and then drinking from theirs upon his later instruction (v. 20).

*Lk 22:24 – “Then” should be “And” (or “Also,” significant for chronological sequence).

*Jn 1:39 – The times (hours of the day) in the Gospel of John make more sense if they are figured from 12:00 rather than 6:00: ten o’clock (stayed the day with him); 4:6 – six o’clock (the normal time for drawing water); 4:52 – seven o’clock (only 16 miles–concerned father could easily have traveled that distance before evening if starting at 1:00, especially since he was met on the way with the good news); 19:14 – six a.m. (Could not be noon–either an early copyist’s mistake [no manuscript evidence to support this] or it must have been a different way of figuring the hours of the day. Some claim there is no evidence for Roman midnight to midnight days, but this Gospel is such evidence. Every one of these references is better understood as figuring time from 12:00-12:00.) 20:19 – although now evening (cp. Lk 24:29), it is still the first day of the week.

*Jn 6:63 – “Spirit” should probably be capitalized, for the expression is idiomatic, with the word is meaning “leads to.” The meaning of the clause would then be, “The words I have spoken to you lead to the reception of the Spirit and life.”

Jn 17:22-23 – “am” and “are” in 17:23 are not in Gk, perhaps 17:22 should close with colon, or comma, and then “I in them and you in me” (as in other versions).

*Ac 2:9 – “the province of Asia”

*Ac 8:22 – “if perhaps” would be preferable to “if possible”

Ac 12:25 – ms difference – For whatever reason a copyist may have substituted unto for from, it seems inconceivable, from the context, that Luke was saying at this point that they returned to Jerusalem. Their mission had been to Jerusalem, Mark was a resident of Jerusalem, and we next find all three in Antioch. If the alternate ms reading is to be followed, it would seem best to translate it, “After they had completed their relief mission to Jerusalem, Barnabas and Saul returned, taking . . . .”

*Ac 13:48 – “appointed” is a viable option, but the word could also be translated, “inclined” or “disposed.”

Ac 15:7,13 – “and sisters” should be omitted. This was a meeting of the “apostles and elders” (v. 6) – although see v. 22 – and the literal address was to “Men, brothers” (andres, adelphoi). The word for men here refers to males.

*Ac 16:5 – number is singular in the Greek, implying perhaps that there were more churches, not just bigger ones.

Ac 22:9 – Since the men with him heard the sound of the voice (9:7), the word here must have the alternate meaning, “understood.”

Ro 2:14 – “by nature” should follow the second do, thus reading, “do not have the law, do by nature what the law demands.” (See fn.) 2:15 makes it clear that the law is a part of their nature.

Ro 3:25 – Word order in Gk. is “atoning sacrifice [received] through faith in his blood.”

*Ro 4:25 – Both for’s are literally, “on account of” (see fn, “because of”). If the word means the same in each case, the usual interpretation of “for our justification” is in error. Our trespasses led to his being delivered up; does that mean, then, that in some sense our justification led to his resurrection but rather the other way around?

*Ro 7:9 – Although the word for “sprang to life again” usually refers to a resurrection (literally or figuratively), again is not always implied and certainly does not seem appropriate to the context here, for in what sense would sin be returning to life and thus causing him to die (v. 10)? The expression “sprang to life” implies a suddenness, the preferred meaning for the Greek word here, rather than implying a revival or resurrection.

*Ro 8:27 – Although because is one meaning of the word here, it seems that the meaning that would better fit the context. He is not describing why he knows the mind of the Spirit but rather the content of that mind (desire).

Ro 9:1 – “with me,” not “to me” since it follows a verb prefix sum

Ro 9:5 – “ancestors” is the same word (fathers) as in 11: 28, translated there as “patriarchs” and no doubt referring to the same ones, so should be translated here also as “patriarchs.”

*1 Cor 1:7 – The word spiritual should be omitted. Spiritual gift elsewhere (e.g., Ro 1:11; 1 Cor 12:1) most likely refers to the miraculous gifts that were bestowed through the hands of an apostle. In those cases, the word for spiritual is pneumatikos, implying, at least in 1 Corinthians a work of the Holy Spirit. The word here in 1:7 is simply charisma, which, contrary to popular thought, refers to God’s gifts in general, miraculous or not.

*1 Cor 1:13,15 – “baptized into,” rather than “baptized in.”

*1 Cor 2:13 – The better translation may be in the footnote, “things with spiritual words.” However, the context may favor the text, with “spiritual people” referring to the apostles and prophets.

*1 Cor 5:9 – “I wrote to you in a letter,” while technically accurate, implies a previous letter. It is just as accurate to translate, “I am writing you in [my] letter,” viewing the verb as an epistolary aorist, referring to the current letter.

*1 Cor 8:6 – probably should omit commas in “God the Father” and “Lord Jesus Christ,” for he is certainly not saying that God is not the Lord or that Jesus is not God. Rather, there is only one God, whom we refer to (sometimes) as God the Father and (at other times) “the Lord Jesus Christ.”

*1 Cor 11:16 – “other” should be “such” (referring to the practice of arguing about this).

*1 Cor 11:19 – Replace “differences” with “factions” (more literal; and he is speaking facetiously in this verse anyway). Other facetious verses: 1 Corinthians 10:1; 12:16.

1 Cor 11:33 – “welcome” should be “wait for.” The context makes it clear that he is telling them to wait for one another to begin eating.

1 Cor 12:6 – “produces each gift” is literally, “works [them] all”

*1 Cor 12:13 – “by one Spirit” should be “in one Spirit.” This preposition, when following a form of baptize, always refers to the medium in which one is baptized. A different preposition is used when referring to the baptizer.

*1 Cor 13:10 – “perfect” should be “complete,” for it is in opposition to partial.

*1 Cor 14:16,23,24 – the word for outsider more likely refers to an inquirer.

*1 Cor 16:2 – “every week” is implied in the structure – obviously not to be just one week.

Gal 1:10 – “persuade” does not fit the context, whereas “win the approval of” (see mg.) does.

*Gal 3:17 – “ratified” would be clearer than “established,” for the time element refers to the Exodus rather than the initial promise (Gen 12:7; 15:13-14).

*Gal 5:16 – “you will certainly not” should be “do not.” The Greek structure requires an imperative here.

Eph 2:18 – “Spirit,” not “spirit” (see 1:13; also Ac 10:47; 11:15-17)

Eph 2:21 – The Greek structure requires “every building” rather than “the whole building.”

Eph 4:8 – “the captives” should perhaps read “captivity.”

*Eph 4:11 – to be consistent, pastors (the only place where the word is so translated) should be translated “shepherds.”

*Php 2:16 – Alternately, “holding firm to” perhaps should read, “holding forth.”

Col 1:23 – “in all creation” should be “to [in] every creature.”

1 Thess 5:14 – “and sisters” is incorrectly inserted here, for he is almost certainly addressing the leaders of the church in this verse (as opposed to the members in 5:12).

2 Thess 1:11 – or, “count you worthy” (cp. v. 5, although different form of the root word)

*1 Tim 1:10 – “those who engage in homosexual practice” (or some similar language) rather than the mere word homosexuals. (Other versions also have a difficult time expressing what is meant here. “Perverts” and “sodomites” are too vague. “Homosexual offenders” or “practicing homosexuals” may be the best term.)

*Tit 1:6 – “trustworthy” may be preferable to “faithful,” for “faithful” may imply that they are believers, but that is not necessarily the case.

*Heb 2:1 – or, “drift by (past)”

*Heb 6:6 – or, “fallen away while,”

*Heb 10:25 – “to gather together” should be “our meeting” (meeting being a noun)

Heb 11:19 – “therefore” is better translated “from which,” otherwise, there would be no indication of back from where/what.

*Heb 12:17 – “repentance” is an accurate translation, but the point may be (as in NIV) that he could find no change of mind on the part of his father.

*Jas 2:18 – An alternate placement of the quotation marks is preferable (closing at the end of the sentence), for the second sentence would be irrelevant to the argument if it is said by a person different from the first sentence. And it would make more sense for the verse to begin with an alternate translation, “Indeed,” rather than “But.”

*1 Pet 1:1; 2:11 – “exiles” should be “foreigners” or “resident aliens.” Christians are strangers in this world, but not exiles, for we have not been expelled from our homeland.

1 Pet 3:3 – Omits the last item, “or putting on of clothing . . . .” Some versions read “fine clothing” (or something similar) to bring it in line with 1 Tim 2:9, but Peter’s readers probably did not have access to 1 Timothy. Could Peter’s use of this item (simply “clothing” or “cloak”) imply that he is not forbidding all forms of these practices but is simply instructing the women to be more concerned about their inner beauty than about whatever they wore.

*1 Jn 2:14 – “I have written” is a valid translation, but the tense is likely an epistolary aorist and thus better, “I write.”

* 1 Jn 3:9 – present tense (as well as context, see 1:8, and experience) implies that “does not keep on [or, continue] sinning” and “is not able to keep on [or, continue] sinning,” respectively, are to be preferred.

*2 Jn 7 – The verse should begin with the word “For.”

*3 Jn 5 – The brothers spoken of here were probably evangelists, and so it would be best not to insert “and sisters” in this case. (Not that they would necessarily be traveling without wives.)

*Rev 20:4 – “their” is not in the original (“testimony” most likely refers to the apostles’ testimony, not the martyrs’–the word refers always either to eyewitness or prophetic testimony, neither of which really applies here). Also, it is more accurate (aorist tense) to read “did not worship” and “did not accept” rather than “had not.” Could make a difference regarding the timing of these actions (prior to or after this resurrection).

Review of New Living Translation (Second Edition, 2004)

C. Ermal Allen

For the most part this second edition of the New Living Translation, © 2004, is a very good translation. General comments: (1) They do try to be gender neutral (e.g., people or an equivalent instead of men, and adding “and sisters” to “brothers”), but they do not go overboard with it. Church leaders are designated as men. (2) Regarding the Red Sea, they do put in the end notes that the Hebrew says “Sea of Reeds” (although to be more accurate, it says, “Sea of Reed,” although even that is open to question), but these notes do not follow other translations by saying, “i.e., Sea of Reeds.” (3) Unfortunately, the bias of the translators occasionally slants the translation toward premillennialism and Calvinism. (4) Endnotes are quite extensive, often giving more literal or alternate translations or referring to alternate ms. readings. (5) Really weak on baptism, especially in relation to water (especially Acts 10:47 and Eph 5:26).

Sometimes expressions are expounded a bit more than the usual dynamic translations (such as the NIV), but for the most part the additions are not excessive. This version is certainly not a paraphrase. It is, to a great extent, quite literal.

Beginning ca. 600 BC, modern dates are inserted into the text. However, in some cases they have the wrong year (e.g., the date of the fall of Jerusalem) and thus the wrong day of the month. In other cases we cannot be sure about the exact year.

Old Testament corrections

Gen 3:1 – “the shrewdest of” should be “shrewder than”

Gen 10:21 – end note is to be preferred, “whose older brother was Japheth”

Gen 10:25; 1 Chron 1:19 – “people of the world were divided into different language groups” is an interpretation of “the earth was divided” (alternate interp. the breakup of Pangea)

Gen 27:30 – text is possible, but so also is the same without the word away

Ex 13:2 et al. – “firstborn” and “first offspring” are masculine

Ex 14:20 – or more likely, “camps, and the cloud brought darkness [for the Egyptians], and it lit up the night [for the Israelites].”

Ex 20:5 – “lay punishment for the sins”

Ex 32:1,4 et al. – The word for God is plural and can refer to gods; however, in this context it should be singular (as well as the pronoun), for (1) there is only one calf, (2) the festival was to Yahweh, and (3) the pronoun in Neh 9:18 is singular. This apparently was a violation of the second commandment but not of the first.

Ex 32:14 – “changed his mind” is an unfortunate translation, though literally possible, for the Bible makes it clear that God does not “change his mind.” Better translated “relented”

Lev 24:6 – more likely, “stacks” rather than rows. Consider the quantity of flour in each.

Num 11:8 – Literally: “He sees the form of the Lord.”

Dt 6:4 – Better reading: “is one” rather than “alone”

Dt 10:7-9 – Close parenthesis should be at end of v. 7 rather than v. 9.

Dt 32:36 – “change his mind about” should read “relent concerning”

Jdg 11:31 – “or” can be added between “triumph” and “I” (the Hebrew can be read as either and or or; Jephthah may have been talking about dedicating any human for exclusive service at the tabernacle, and thus his mourning over his daughter may have dealt with her not getting married and leaving him an heir)

Jdg 18:3 – “voice” is better than “accent” for they may have known this particular Levite (the grandson of Moses)

1 Sam 2:30 – this is a Messianic passage, clouded by this translation. “your branch of the tribe of Levi” should be “your house [Eli’s] and your father’s house [Aaron’s]” (a reference to the change in the order of the priesthood)

1 Sam 2:31 – “your family” should be “your [Eli’s] strength [arm] and the strength of your father’s [Aaron’s] house”

1 Sam 4:21 – Ichabod means “no glory”

1 Sam 7:6 – The parenthetical sentence should read, “And Samuel judged Israel at Mizpah.”

2 Sam 8:18 – “priestly leaders” should read “royal advisers” (wrong tribe to be priests)

2 Sam 21:4 – “demand the life of” should read “put to death” (they are in the process of demanding someone’s life)

2 Sam 24:1 – “incited David against” rather than “caused David to harm”

1 Kings 12:31 et al. – “high places” were not necessarily “pagan shrines.” Frequently they were places were God was worshiped (although in most cases forbidden).

2 Chron 26:15 – “protect those who shot arrows and hurled” should read, “shoot arrows and hurl” (refers to some sort of machines)

2 Chron 36:6 – “and led him away” should be “to take him” (he died before leaving)

2 Chron 36:23 – “the Lord’s” should read the same as in Ezra 1:3, “his”

Est 1:22 – “should say whatever he pleases” should read, “speaking according to the language of his own people”

Ps 2:6 – omits the emphatic “As for me” before “I.”

Ps 16:8 – “right beside me” not quite the same as “at my right hand”

Ps 40:6 – Keep the more literal, “My ears you have pierced,” allowing for different interpretation (cp. Ex 21:6)

Ps 51:9 – Literally: “For I was born in iniquity; and in sin my mother conceived me.” (probably a figurative expression meaning he had been a sinner since childhood not necessarily since birth, cp. 58:3)

Ps 58:3 – Not “are born sinners” but “go astray from the womb.” Refers not to any inherited sinfulness but rather to sinful actions after birth.

Ps 67:1-2 – “us, (Interlude) that your ways may . . .”

Ps 68:18 – The more literal translation “among” rather than “from” would be more consistent with Paul’s use of this passage in Eph 4:8.

Ps 119:19 – or “on earth”

Eccl 12:3 – omit “your legs,” “your shoulders,” “your teeth,” “your eyes”

Eccl 12:13 – “everyone’s duty” should read, “what makes you whole”

S of S 4:13 – “thighs” should read “plants” [or shoots or branches]

S of S 7:2 – “between your thighs lies” should read “Your waist [or belly] is”

S of S 8:2 – “childhood” should read “mother’s”; “and there . . . me” should read, “she who taught me.”

S of S 8:9 – omit “promiscuous like” and “swinging”

Isa 9:7 – “The increase of his government . . .”

Isa 14:1 – omit “as his special people”

Isa 66:7 – “Jerusalem,” or “she”

Jer 36:5 – “a prisoner” should read “shut in” or “hindered”

Jer 39:2 – “Two and a half” should read “One and a half” (9th year, 10th month to the 11th year, 4th month would only by 1½ years). The Hebrew text does not have either.

Eze 7:26 – “elders” rather than “leaders”

Eze 21:27 – omit “judge” (Messiah would have the right to wear the crown, v. 26)

Eze 40:1 – “in the 14th year”

Dan 9:24 – “Most Holy One” rather than “Most Holy Place”

Dan 9:27 – “He” rather than “the ruler”

Dan 9:27 – Replace “And as a climax to all his terrible deeds” with “On a wing of the temple” and omit “for this defiler.” Change last “him” to “it” (meaning the temple).

Dan 10:13 et al. – omit “spirit” in front of “prince”

Hos 1:2 – “Go, take to yourself a wife of fornication and children of fornication” (they may have simply been from a promiscuous culture, not that they themselves were immoral)

Hos 2:2 – Replace “the clothing that exposes” with “her adulteries from between”

Hos 5:8 – Or perhaps, “Behind you, Benjamin!” (Meaning that the enemy is moving so fast that they move right past Benjamin before they notice.)

Amos 4:4 – “years” rather than “days” (although “days” is a proper translation, there is no OT reference to any tithe being paid every 3 days)

Mic 1:10 – literally, “I roll myself in the dust”

Mic 5:2 – “goings out” rather than “origins” (probably refers to military campaigns; since this is about the Messiah, obviously “origins” does not work since he had no origin)

Hab 2:14 – “the knowledge” rather than “an awareness” (really weak)

Zech 2:8 – The person sent from the Lord in this passage is the Lord, not the prophet. Therefore, quotation marks should reflect this reality. “This is what the Lord . . . says, ‘After glory he sent me . . . you, for anyone who harms you . . . .”

Zech 2:9 – Move close quotes from after “them” to after “sent me.”

Zech 4:14 – “‘These two are the anointed ones [lit., sons of the oil] who stand before the Lord of all the earth.’”

Zech 6:14-15 – Remove close quote at v. 14. Add open quote to beginning of v. 15. Then, “you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s armies has sent me to you. All this will happen . . . . Close quote at end of v. 15.

Mal 1:7 – second “altar” should be “table”

New Testament corrections

Mt 2:23 – better to be more literal, “said, for he,” since it is not a direct quote

Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16 – “with” before “fire” should be omitted

Mt 6:23 – “that darkness” should be “the darkness”

Mt 13:30 – “first” should be added before “to sort” and “then” before “to put”

Mt 15:27 – “That’s true, Lord, but” should be “Yes, Lord, for”

Mt 16:28 – “hell will not conquer” should be “Hades will not withstand”

Mt 18:22 – “seventy times seven” should be “seventy-seven times” (The Greek word for “times” does not indicate multiplication as the English can.)

Mt 22:17,21; Mk 12:14,15,17; Lk 20:22,25 – This version follows the example of nearly all versions in switching the words “pay” and “give.”

Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14 – “Reader, pay attention!” should be within the quotes, for they are the words of Jesus, not of the author, calling attention to the prophecy in Daniel

Mt 24:28 – “the end” should be “the kingdom.” The entire clause, “so these signs indicate that the end is near,” is an explanatory addition (not in the Greek); but see 24:33.

Mt 24:33 – “can know his return” should be “know that it” (see Lk 21:31)

Mt 24:36 – “the day or hour when these things will happen” should simply be “about that day or hour” (“that day” in this chapter refers to the second coming, not to the destruction of Jerusalem, when “these things” would happen)

Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12 – omit “of the Festival” (not in the Greek; apparently the “first day of unleavened bread” in the first century referred to the day in which all leaven was removed, just prior to the seder, whereas the Festival began the next day)

Mt 26:27,29 et al. – “wine” should be “fruit of the vine,” for the word for wine is never used in the New Testament in relation to the Last Supper or the Lord’s Supper

Mt 26:36 et al. – although it may have been an olive grove, the word literally means, “garden”

Mt 26:64 – “in the future” is literally, “from now on”

Mt 27:47 – not “bystanders,” for they must have been the soldiers on duty

Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53 – omit the words “a long sheet of” for the custom required strips of linen, not a sheet of linen (see Lk 24:12, Jn 11:44; 19:40; 20:5-6 (Gk plurals). This version apparently assumes that there was a shroud and forces the text to that idea.

Mt 28:17 – omit “of them,” for surely by now the doubters were others, not the apostles

Mt 28:19 – In relation to baptism, the word should almost certainly be translated “into,” not “in”

Mk 2:26 – “when Abiathar was” should be “of Abiathar [who later became] the”

Mk 6:22 – should follow alternate ms. reading, “the daughter of Herodias herself” (Josephus confirms that it was Salome)

Mk 7:28 – “That’s true, Lord, but” should be “Yes, Lord; even”

Mk 7:33 – omit “on his own fingers” (no indication Jesus put his saliva on the man’s tongue; the spitting probably on the ground, to show his disgust for the man’s condition)

Mk 13:29 – “his return is very near” should read “it is near” (see Lk 21:31)

Mk 13:32 – “that day” instead of “the day” and omit “when these things will happen”

Lk 2:14 – could be translated “mankind, with whom God is pleased,” or “mankind, whom God has favored” (The question has to do regarding whom the birth of Christ was intended to benefit. The KJV may have the meaning, although not exact grammatical construction.)

Lk 2:23 – “Every firstborn boy” is more exact.

Lk 2:34 – “but he will be a joy to many others” is regarded as the meaning of “and rise.” (However, both falling and rising may apply to the same people; they fall before him and then rise to serve him.)

Lk 3:3 – “turned” should read “were turning” (literal reading: “a baptism of repentance unto the forgiveness of sins”)

Lk 3:22 – literally, “in bodily form as a dove”

Lk 17:37 – “will this happen” should be omitted, also “so these signs indicate that the end is near” (there are no signs in the immediately preceding paragraphs)

Lk 18:6 – The entire sentence beginning with “Even” is an addition.

Jn 1:14,17 – “grace and truth” is to be preferred to “unfailing love and faithfulness”

Jn 1:17 – “at the Father’s side” is to be preferred to “near to the Father’s heart”

Jn 1:39 et al. – All times in John are written in modern form; but if John uses time that runs from 12:00-12:00 rather than 6:00-6:00, then the text is misleading. All times in John work out better if he is using a 12:00-12:00 system, especially 19:14!

Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:11 – “so loved” not “loved so much” for the expression refers to how he loved us, not how much (nature of the love not the quantity)

Jn 4:35 – “months until harvest” is literal and may refer to the time of year rather than just a farmers’ saying about the time between planting and harvest

Jn 6:29 – omit the word “only”

Jn 10:35 –“altered” does not quite get at the meaning of the literal “broken”

Jn 14:17 – “the Spirit of truth” may be broader in meaning than the One “who leads into all truth”

Jn 17:3 – Jesus is not just “the way to have eternal life” – he is eternal life (he in us, we in him)

Jn 19:14 – could not be noon! Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9:00 a.m., according to Mark).

Jn 19:14 – “Day of Preparation” refers to Friday, not the day of preparation for the passover meal. The Friday of Passover Week (Festival) is referred to here.

Jn 19:20 – “Aramaic” not Hebrew, certainly.

Jn 19:23 – “tunic,” not a robe

Jn 19:40 – “strips of linen,” not long sheets.

Ac 2:1 – “all the believers were” should read “they were all” (not all believers were there)

Ac 6:1 – “Aramaic,” not Hebrew (average people at that time could not speak Hebrew)

Ac 10:47 – “in water” should be appended to “baptized”

Ac 12:11 – “his senses” should be “himself” (he thought he was seeing a vision, but he wasn’t)

Ac 13:48 – “chosen for” could better be translated by “inclined toward”

Ac 20:7 – “reasoning with” not “preaching”

Ac 21:4 – “said,” not “prophesied” (no divine direction implied here)

Ac 21:39 – “a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city” (may be referring to his Roman citizenship)

Ac 22:16 – “be baptized and have your sins washed away, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Ac 24:14 – “sect” (not the same thing as a cult)

Ro 1:32 – “approve,” not necessarily “encourage”

Ro 3:25 – “through their belief” not “when they believe”

Ro 3:26 – “through their faith (or belief),” not “when they believe”

Ro 4:25 – “die on account of our sins . . . life on account of our justification” (could mean “as a result of”)

Ro 5:13 – “But . . . break” should read, “Yet, where there is no law, there is no sin.”

Ro 6:17 – “now you . . . this,” more literally, “you wholeheartedly obeyed the form [or image, pattern] of”

Ro 7:9 – “lived without understanding” should read “was alive apart from”

Ro 8:9 – omit “living in them”

Ro 9:18 – omit “so they refuse to listen”

Ro 12:3 – “measuring yourselves by the faith God has given us” should read “by the God-given measure [or standard]: faith”

Ro 12:6 – “speak out . . . given you” should read, “do so in proportion to your faith”

Ro 13:1 – “those in positions of authority” should read, “the authorities that exist” (not necessarily the people in those positions)

Ro 13:4 – “have the power to punish you” is too general. Should read “do not wield the power of the sword in vain.”

Ro 14:1 – “what they think is right or wrong” refers to “disputable matters” (i.e., things not explicitly revealed)

Ro 14:2 – “with a sensitive conscience” should read, “who is weak”

Ro 15:1 – “sensitive” should read, “weak”

1 Cor 1:10 – “to live in harmony with each other” is too weak: “that all should say the same thing”

1 Cor 1:13,15 – “baptized into,” not “in”

1 Cor 1:21 – “the preaching of ‘foolishness,’” not “our foolish preaching”

1 Cor 5:2 – “from among you,” not “from your fellowship” (only God can do the latter)

1 Cor 5:17 – “do not have a wife” should read, “are divorced”

1 Cor 11:7 – omit “when worshiping”

1 Cor 11:16 – “no other custom than this” should read, “no such custom” (being argumentative)

1 Cor 12:13 – “in one Spirit,” not “by” (word when used with form of “baptize” always means in, not by)

1 Cor 13:13 – “remain” (i.e., after cessation of prophecy and tongues), not “will last forever”

1 Cor 14:33-34 – “as in all . . .” should begin v. 35

2 Cor 1:11 – Last sentence should read, “. . . thanks on your [or, our] behalf.”

2 Cor 8:10; 9:2 – “a year ago” should read, “last year” (actually only a few months prior)

Gal 1:19 – “I met no other apostle, except I did meet James . . . .”

Gal 3:17 – Instead of “later,” should read, “after it was ratified”

Gal 5:10 – “I am confident in the Lord concerning you that you will not think otherwise. God”

Gal 5:16 – “guide your lives, and do not be doing” (Greek construction makes this two independent imperatives)

Eph 1:10 – “he will” should read “to” (not necessarily in Paul’s future)

Eph 3:5 – “as” instead of “but”

Eph 3:15 – follow endnote: “from whom every family in heaven . . .”

Eph 4:11 – “shepherds” instead of “pastors”

Eph 5:26 – “holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word”

Php 2:3 – or, “more important than,” rather than “better than”

Php 3:3 – perhaps “in the Spirit” rather than “by the Spirit”

1 Thess 5:14 – probably addressed to leaders, so it should omit “and sisters” in this case

2 Tim 1:6 – “when I laid my hands on you” is more specifically, “through the laying on of my hands”

2 Tim 4:1 – “when he appears to set up his kingdom” should read, “and [in view of] his appearance and his kingdom”

2 Tim 4:1 – omit “your people”

Tit 1:6 – “believers” is also translated, “trustworthy” (also used of Paul before becoming a disciple, 1 Tim 1:12)

Tit 3:5 – “mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” is the literal translation.

Tit 3:14 – “good works” is the literal translation, translated here as “good by meeting the urgent needs of others”

Phe 1:10 – “chains” rather than “prison” (not in prison, literally, but under house arrest)

Heb 6:6 – add “as long as” (implied by the participle) between “repentance” and “by rejecting”

Heb 9:4 – “In that room were” should read, “That room had” (the altar was not in the room)

Heb 10:25 – omit “of his return” (“the day” could refer to other days)

Heb 12:1 – omit “to the life of faith”

Heb 12:23 – omit “now”

1 Pet 1:20 – “foreknew” rather than “chose”

1 Pet 3:21 – “a response to God from a clean conscience” better translated “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” or “ a pledge [from God] of a good conscience”

1 Pet 4:10 – omit “spiritual”

1 Pet 5:2 – “not grudgingly–not greedy for money, but”

2 Pet 3:10 – Not “then” but rather, “On that day”

2 Pet 3:10 – “found to deserve judgment” is literally “laid bare” (see v. 12)

1 Jn 2:19 – “us” (the apostles and their teaching) rather than “our churches”

1 Jn 2:21 – “an anointing” rather than “his Spirit”

1 Jn 2:27 – “the anointing from him” rather than “the Holy Spirit”; “the anointing” rather than “the Spirit”; and “it” rather than “he.”

1 Jn 3:1 – omit “very much” (not how much but in what way)

1 Jn 4:11 – “God so loved us” and then omit “that much”

2 Jn 9 – “Anyone who goes ahead without bringing this teaching” may refer to false teachers rather than wandering sheep.

Rev 1:19 – “also” rather than “both”

Rev 4:11 – “willed” rather than “pleased”

Rev 12:17 – “maintain their testimony for” should be “keep the testimony of” (it’s Jesus’ testimony, not theirs)

Rev 19:10 – “who keep the testimony of Jesus” rather than “testify about their faith in Jesus.”

Rev 20:4 – “for the testimony of Jesus” rather than “for their testimony about Jesus.”

A Review of the English Standard Version (2007)

Also Compared with Christian Standard Bible (2017)

C. Ermal Allen

The following are my original criticisms of the ESV (2007). This symbol ^ marks the verses in this list where the CSB is an improvement over the ESV.

Awkward Renderings

• ^Gen. 5:22. Enoch fathered Methuselah 300 years? The clause “after he fathered Methuselah” should precede “Enoch walked with God 300 years . . . .”

• ^Gen. 23:20. The phrase “by the Hittites” is made to modify “a burying place” when in fact it should modify “was made over.” It would no longer be a place for the Hittites to bury their dead. (Regarding the translation “Hittites,” see below on Gen. 23:3 in “Missed Understanding.”)

• ^Lev. 20:9. “For” makes no sense here. Another translation such as “Certainly” must be meant.

• ^Jn. 15:19. The second but should be replaced with something like, “since.”

• ^Acts 1:3. Jesus suffered by many proofs? A better order of words would be, “After his suffering, he presented himself to them alive, by many proofs . . . .”

• ^Acts 11:26. The last sentence in the verse sounds like the disciples in Antioch were known as Christians before they were known as anything else. Moving the words in Antioch to the end of the sentence gives the better sense, that it was in Antioch that the disciples, for the first time, were called Christians.

• ^Acts 18:18. The translation, “he had cut his hair,” is totally misleading, for what is meant is, “he had his hair cut.”

• ^Acts 23:6. Although the text is a literal translation, replacing the and between “hope” and “the resurrection with “in” would flow more naturally. The and may mean even, or that is. The resurrection of the dead is the hope.

• ^2 Cor. 1:19. “Silvanus and Timothy and I” is misplaced. It should be in apposition to “we” rather than “you.”

• ^2 Cor. 2:17. The last four phrases in the sentence are placed as to make the verse almost unintelligible, especially to someone hearing the passage read. It would read better, “but in the sight of God we speak in Christ, as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God.”

• ^1 Tim 3:15. Should say, “the pillar,” even there is no article in the Greek, but neither is there one before household, church, or living God.

Missed Understanding

• Gen. 19:14. It is more likely that these sons-in-law were actually married to two of Lot’s daughters. The text describes them as “sons-in-law who had married his daughters,” not as future sons-in-law. Lot probably had four daughters, two of which were married and two of which were still at home (see 19:15, “your two daughters who are here”).

• ^Gen. 23:3 et al. The “sons of Heth” in Genesis were probably not identical with the Hittites (although later in time the expression did refer to Hittites).

• Ex. 32:1,4,8,23,31. The better translation is, “a God,” and respectively, “This is your God.” Although “gods” is a possible translation, and supported in verse 4 (and verse 8) by the plural pronoun, note that there was only one calf. They were not worshiping other gods but a calf-image of God. See verse 5: “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.” See also Neh. 9:18 where Nehemiah uses the singular pronoun, “This is your God.” The plural pronoun in Ex. 32:4 (as well as the plural verb in 32:23) is most likely merely a grammatical agreement in number with the word God (which is plural in form but singular in meaning when referring to God). This was a violation of the second commandment (image of God), not the first.

• ^Deut. 10:7-9. The parenthesis should close at the end of verse 7 rather than verse 9. According to Ex. 32:29, the Levites were set apart (Deut. 10:8) after the making of the golden calf, not after the death of Aaron (Deut. 10:6). Aaron and his descendants were the Levites who were set apart to carry the ark.

• ^Deut 17:18. “copied from that of” more likely in meaning than “approved by.”

• Judges 11:31. The conjunction can be translated “or” (or at least given as an alternate translation in the footnotes). It is not necessary to accuse Jephthah of practicing human sacrifice–his vow may have been to sacrifice an animal or to dedicate a person to the exclusive service of the Lord (as Samuel was dedicated by his mother). Jephthah’s grief is not over his daughter’s death but over her continued virginity–and thus the end of his family line.

• Judges 11:40. Perhaps, not to “lament,” but to “recount” the story–possibly with the daughter herself for the rest of her life.

• ^1 Kings 15:10,13. Although the word is literally “mother,” Maacah was his “grandmother.” His mother was probably not also his grandmother–see 15:1-2.

• ^2 Kings 23:20. It is hardly thinkable that Josiah would consider this slaughter to be a sacrifice (human).

• ^1 Chr. 13:5. This was probably not the Nile but more likely the Wadi of Egypt.

• ^2 Chr. 31:16. More likely, “besides” or “in addition to” instead of “except.”

• Est. 1:22. It is not likely that the command was for each man to speak according to the language of his people. More likely that the command was given in each one’s language.

• Ps. 40:6. ESV here gives “dynamic equivalence,” and perhaps an incorrect one at that. The reference may be to pierced ears, a symbol of lifetime slavery (obedience). See Ex. 21:6.

• ^Pro. 28:8. Surely he’s not advising against making a profit. More likely refers to exorbitant prices or interest.

• Eccl. 12:13. Adding the word duty is unwise, for the passage is probably referring not to duty but to the essence of humanity. “This is the whole of man,” i.e., fear of God and keeping his commands are what make a human being whole. (A. Campbell)

• ^Isa. 3:7. “I am not a healer” would fit the context better, for it is talking about qualifications for being a leader.

• ^Isa. 35:8. Not likely that fools any more than the “unclean” will be walking on this road. NIV is to be preferred, “wicked fools will not go about on it.”

• ^Isa. 65:20. Not talking about sinners but about living a long time; therefore, better to read, “the one who fails to reach 100 years will be [considered] accursed.”

• ^Hos. 5:8. The literal, “Behind you, O Benjamin,” is to be preferred. It does not necessarily mean that they would follow Benjamin–why would they?–but may mean that the invaders are moving so rapidly that they have moved past Benjamin while he’s still getting ready. (Note the geographical progression of the place names.)

• Matt. 11:12. Although the ESV translation is technically possible, it fails on two points: (1) It does not agree with the similar statement in Luke 16:16 where the clause, “the kingdom of God is preached,” is parallel to Matt. 11:12, “the kingdom of God has suffered violence,” and the clause, “everyone forces his way into it,” is parallel to “the violent take it by force”; and (2) the context of Matt. 11:12 deals with the kind of person that John was, as opposed to soft-clothed men in palaces, not with persecution or violence. The word biadzetai therefore should be translated as middle ( “forcing itself”) rather than passive voice. The NIV seems to have the better understanding, “the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.”

• ^Mk 9:41. The expression, “in my name,” can involve more than just “because you belong to Christ.”

• Lk. 2:14. Translating the word men as “those” misses a possible meaning of this statement, that God has goodwill toward mankind and is showing this goodwill by sending them the Christ. The clause could be translated, “among men, toward whom he has goodwill.”

• ^Acts 13:14 refers to Antioch in Pisidia, but Antioch was not in Pisidia but rather on the border. It is more accurately designated “Pisidian Antioch.”

• Acts 28:13. The sailing terminology is better reflected in “weighed anchor” rather than “made a circuit.” (It is a question of manuscripts followed.)

• Rom. 3:25. The better translation, more literal and straightforward, is “a propitiation through faith in his blood.” The faith is not just any faith, but faith in the efficacy of his blood as a propitiation.

• ^Rom. 14:22. It is not the faith of the person that is in question here but his belief regarding a particular issue.

• ^Col. 1:15 et al. The translation, “firstborn of all creation,” though technically possible, loses its force in English as it sounds like Jesus was a part of creation. The word firstborn in Hebrew thought includes the concept of leader of the family (i.e., patriarch), and thus the better translation would be “firstborn over all creation.”

• ^1 Thess. 4:16. The translation, “an archangel,” while technically possible, is not to be preferred. The Greek does not have the definite article before archangel, but neither does it have the definite article before voice or trumpet, both of which ESV precedes with the definite article. Since the Bible never mentions more than one archangel, the definite article should also precede archangel in this text.

• ^1 Tim. 5:12. Does Paul really mean they have abandoned the faith? Or is he not talking about some pledge regarding their service?

• Jas. 2:18. Although the translation in this passage is technically correct, it would fit the context better and make more sense if “But” were translated “Indeed” and if the close quote mark were moved to the end of the verse. Rather than being a defense by the person who claims to have faith without works, this verse is an additional objection to his claim.

• ^Jas. 4:5. The context seems to favor the translation, “The spirit he made to live in us yearns enviously.”

• ^1 Pet. 3:20. The translation, “were brought safely,” is based on a misunderstanding. The context, v. 21, shows that he is talking about being saved by water, not being safely brought through. The ark saved them from the water, but the water saved Noah and his family from the evil that had enveloped the whole world. Without the flood, no righteous person would have remained after the death of Noah.

• ^2 Peter 3:10,12. ESV refers to “the heavenly bodies,” but the text is referring to the elements of the earth (as in the footnote alternate).

Incorrect or Inadequate Translations

• Gen. 3:1. The Hebrew does not have the word other. This verse is not talking about serpents in general but about one creature called “the serpent” who speaks to the woman. It is referring to Satan and may even be calling his name, “The Serpent,” rather than referring to his appearance. At any rate, this creature is not a “beast of the field,” and thus the addition of other is unwarranted.

• Gen. 10:21. Although the translation is possible, Shem could not have been the older brother of Japheth, for Noah’s first son was born when he was 500, but Shem was born when Noah was 502 (or possibly even 503, cp. 11:10 with 8:13). Ham was the youngest (9:24), and so Japheth must have been the one born when Noah was 500. The correct translation of 10:21 must therefore be, “the brother of Japheth the elder” (which is, incidentally, the exact order of the Hebrew words).

• Gen. 49:10. It is unnecessary to amend the text. The literal and proper translation is, “until Shiloh comes.” This is a messianic passage, with the Messiah’s name Shiloh, which means, “the Peace-bringer.”

• ^Ex. 1:10. “Escape” is hardly correct, for there is no evidence that prior to this point they had been enslaved. “Leave” would suffice.

• Ex. 11:1. Insert “had” before “said,” for 11:1-8 must have occurred before 10:28-29.

• ^Ex. 24:6 et al. The translation “throw” is a possible translation, but the word is used as a synonym to “sprinkle” in Numbers 19:20-21. “Throwing blood” evokes a different picture than “sprinkling blood.”

• Ex 25:5; 26:14; Num 4:6,25 et al. – dugong (sea cow) skins rather than goatskins; better translation plus it was obviously for waterproofing.

• ^Ex. 31:17. The Sabbath was not a sign of creation but rather the creation was the reason for his choice of the 7th day for the Sabbath. Thus, “for” instead of “that.”

• Ex 34:28. 3rd “he” should refer to God (see v. 1).

• Lev 15:3. Should read, “his body is stopped from his discharge,” meaning that the discharge has quit.

• Josh. 5:1. The first person plural (indicating that the narrative was written by an eyewitness), “until we had crossed” has been translated as third person. Although the qere (Hebrew marginal note indicating how the editors thought it should be read) is third person, the first person makes perfect sense and agrees with verse 6, “to give to us.”

• 2 Sam. 3:29. How is holding “a spindle” a curse? The literal translation is “one being strengthened with the stick.” NIV, LXX (Greek translation): “who leans on a crutch.”

• ^2 Sam 8:18. “chief officials” rather than priests (see 1 Chr 18:17). David’s sons could not be priests since they were from the tribe of Judah.

• ^2 Sam 23:21. The Hebrew translated “handsome” is vague–it has to do with one’s appearance–but it must refer to his size, not his good looks, for the parallel in 1 Chron. 11:23 refers to extraordinary height.

• ^1 Chron. 18:3. “Monument” is one translation, but a rare one, of hand. In this context, the traditional control or rule seems to be more fitting. Why would he have a monument at the Euphrates? Also, the next verses favor the “control” interpretation. See 2 Sam. 8:3.

• ^2 Chron. 3:4. Scribal error of “120 cubits” should be replaced with “20 cubits” (1 Kings 6:3 has 10; Septuagint and Syriac have 20).

• Ezra 6:3. The word translated “retained” is uncertain in meaning, but “retained” implies that it was the same foundation as the temple of Solomon. However, according to 1 Kings 6:2, Solomon’s temple was only 20 cubits wide (60 long, 30 high), whereas Zerubbabel’s was 60 cubits wide (60 high)–Ezra doesn’t say how long it was. (Ezekiel’s was also 60 by 20, 41:2-4.) Therefore “laid” would seem to be a better rendering.

• ^Ezra 9:9. Heb., “a wall” instead of “protection” is to be preferred, for it is very probable that under Ezra they had begun to rebuild the wall (which was subsequently torn back down).

• ^Neh. 2:13; Isa. 27:1; Eze. 29:3. The word dragon is a terrible translation, for the Isaiah reference implies that it is a real creature. (NIV, “jackal” or “monster.”) In Gen. 1:21 ESV refers to the same being as a “sea creature.” In Job 30:29 et al., it uses “jackal.”

• ^Neh. 8:10. Not “the fat” (see Lev. 3:17). Here the word must mean “richly prepared food.”

• ^Est. 3:7. “Day after day” and “month after month” are possible literal translations, but the text is almost certainly not referring to casting lots every day for months but rather a one-time casting to select the month and day for the proposed edict to be carried out. Better: “to choose the day and month, and the lot fell to the twelfth month . . . .”

• Job 19:26. Literally, “from my flesh,” can mean, “in my flesh,” but the New Testament assures us that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.” Therefore, the alternate translation, “apart from my flesh,” is to be preferred.

• Isa. 7:6. Better: “let us divide it between ourselves.” They were not just interested in defeating Judah; they wanted to dismantle the Davidic dynasty.

• ^Isa. 48:17. Although the translation “to profit” is word-for-word correct, it sounds in English like God wants them to make money. The correct meaning is “for your benefit,” referring to the result of his instruction.

• ^Isa. 53:8. “Generation” is a direct object here. The word may refer to the people living at a particular time. Or, the word refers to one’s future. Not likely to refer to one’s descendants.

• ^Eze. 21:27. “Judgment” would be better translated, “it rightfully,” for it is talking about the legitimate heir to the throne of David (the Messiah).

• Dan. 9:25-26, et al. Messiah is the Hebrew word for “an anointed one.” Why not use the transliteration since it is well known, or, at least, as in the Septuagint, “the Anointed One”?

• ^Dan. 9:27. The word for before “half the week” is uncalled for. The meaning is more likely, as in many other versions, “in the middle of the week.”

• Dan. 9:27. Should read, “poured out on the desolated.” Although the tense is qal, the meaning of the verb in the qal is passive, “be desolated.” Therefore, the participle should read, “the one being desolated.”

• Hos. 3:3-4. The word dwell should be translated “wait (for me),” for the point is not that they will dwell with God, but that they will be without any god during the time of the captivity.

• Amos 4:4. Although “days” is the most common translation of the word, “years” is also a possibility, and to be preferred since the tithe was brought every three years (Deut. 14:28), not every three days.

• Amos 7:2,5. The correct translation is “Who” rather than “How.” The full sentence would be, “Who can stand? Jacob?”

• Zech. 6:13. The translation “And there shall be a priest” sounds like the priest will be someone different from the king. “And he will be a priest” is more literal and better theology.

• ^Mal. 2:16. The literal translation is, “For he hated divorcing, said the Lord God of Israel, and (or, but) violence covers his garment, said the Lord of hosts . . . .” The context requires that the one who hated divorce is God and that the one whose garment was covered with violence was Judah (v. 11). Traditional translations are to be preferred. Perhaps even better: “For the Lord God of Israel said he hated divorce, but violence covers Judah’s garment, said the Lord of hosts.”

• Matt. 3:11 et al. The Greek word en, following “baptize” should be translated “in” since one does not immerse with but in.

• Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28. The word yet should be translated “for.” (She is not agreeing with him, but disputing his general claim.) In Mark, yet should just be omitted.

• Matt. 22:3,4. The correct forms should be “had been” and “have been” (pf pass ptcp), respectively, since there had been an earlier invitation.

• ^Matt. 27:3. Judas was “filled with remorse.” The “changed his mind” is too weak.

• ^Matt. 27:59. (See also Mk. 15:46; Lk. 23:53.) The translation, “a clean linen shroud,” assumes too much. (There is no justification, except for tradition, for adding the word shroud.) The plurals in Luke 24:12 and John 19:40 (cp. also Jn. 11:44) make it clear that the linen was torn into strips, according to Jewish burial customs. Matthew, thoroughly acquainted with Jewish burial customs, would surely not refer to a single piece of cloth without mentioning separate strips. Matthew would be in total agreement with John if the passage were translated “in clean linen.”

• Matt. 28:19 et al., “in the name of” (meaning, “by the authority of”) should be “into the name of” (meaning, “into union with” or “into the account of”) in this and other passages where the notes give “into” as an alternate translation.

• ^Mk. 3:20. “And he entered a house” is the literal translation. “Then he went home” implies more about the time and the place than the text warrants.

• ^Mk. 6:22, The word herself is omitted after “Herodias’s daughter.” (Although the meaning of the word is uncertain.)

• ^Mk. 8:9. The word “people” should be omitted since the other accounts say that only the men were counted in the 4,000.

• ^Mk. 11:20. The correct translation is “from its roots.” Not only is this literally more accurate, but if the roots were the first part to wither, then it is understandable why the apostles did not notice that the tree had withered–even though it withered immediately (Matt. 21:19)–until the next morning.

• Lk. 19:4. The tree was not a sycamore, but a tree with low spreading branches. “Sycamore-fig” is better.

• ^Lk. 20:36. “Like the angels” would be better, for humans in heaven are probably not equal to but greater than the angels (see e.g., 1 Cor. 6:3).

• Jn. 2:15. The addition of the word “with” before “the sheep and oxen” is incorrect. The Greek does not imply that the people were driven out with the whip, only the animals.

• ^Jn. 3:16 et al. The translation “only” is inadequate for this word (so is “only begotten”). Isaac (Heb.11:17) was not Abraham’s only son, but he was his only “son of promise” and his only heir. The word means in a unique sense. The NIV “One and Only” is better.

• Acts 2:9 et al. “Asia,” although literally accurate, referred not to the continent but to the Roman province in western Turkey. It should be translated, “the province of Asia.”

• ^Acts 2:39. The words “to himself” are an addition to the text.

• Acts 8:22. “If perhaps” would be preferred to “if possible.”

• ^Acts 8:39. Literally, “for he went on his way rejoicing.” Not a significant difference, but in that case, why not go literal?

• ^Acts 11:20. “Hellenists” implies Greek-speaking Jews, but the context (v. 19) implies that these were not Jews, thus (Gentile) “Greeks” is to be preferred, per the footnote.

• ^Acts 11:26. Word order implies that the disciples were called Christians in Antioch before they were called anything else, whereas the intent is clearly to state that Antioch was the first place that they were called Christians.

• ^Acts 13:14. Antioch was not in Pisidia but nearby. The correct and more literal translation is, “Pisidian Antioch.”

• Acts 13:48. “appointed” is too precise. The word is more vague. A better translation would be “disposed” or “inclined,” which allows for the subject to be God, the person, or either one.

• ^Acts 16:34. The phrase, along with his entire household, is misplaced (although in the same order as in the Greek) so that in English it implies that only the jailer had come to believe. Although “having believed” is singular, so is “rejoiced.” In a similar construction, verse 33 has a singular verb with a multiple subject, “he was baptized at once, he and all his family,” with it clear that all the members of his family were baptized. Verse 34 clearly means, “And he rejoiced, having believed in God, along with his entire household.” Compare also 18:8.

• Rom. 4:25. The translation “for” (as in most translations) would be more accurately translated “on account of” or “because of.”

• Rom. 5:1-3. The best manuscript readings have “let us” rather than “we.” Paul has moved on from stating the facts of the Gospel to exhorting us to apply those facts into our own understanding and lives.

• ^Rom. 6:17. The word translated “standard” is better translated “form.” It probably refers to immersion (baptism) as the form or pattern in its symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

• 1 Cor. 1:13,15. Should be “baptized into,” rather than “baptized in.”

• 1 Cor. 2:13. The better translation is in the footnote. The second alternative is more literal, but the first alternative is probably the meaning.

• ^1 Cor. 7:15. The translation “enslaved” does not make sense. It should be “bound.”

• ^1 Cor. 7:27. In relation to marriage, the word should be translated “a divorce” rather than “to be free.” And the second free should be translated “divorced.”

• ^1 Cor. 11:20. Literally, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” (Implying that their purpose for gathering was to eat the Lord’s Supper.)

• 1 Cor. 13:10. “Perfect” should be “complete,” for it is in opposition to partial.

• ^2 Cor. 1:15. “Have a second experience of grace” should be “benefit twice.” The former, while a possible translation, could be read to favor the doctrine of “second work of grace.” The context favors a second benefit from his visit.

• ^2 Cor. 5:14. The word controls is too strong. Compels, or better, impels, better conveys the thought here.

• ^2 Cor. 5:20. Omit “you.” Probably refers to the church’s message, not to Paul’s present exhortation to the church at Corinth.

• ^2 Cor. 8:10. It was “last year,” really only about 3 months, not a year ago.

• ^2 Cor. 13:9,11. Although restoration is a possible translation, he may be referring to their being equipped for service and growth to maturity as disciples (see Eph. 4:12-13).

• Gal. 5:16. The translation, “and you will not,” should be “and do not.” Greek me (not) + aorist subjunctive = imperative.

• ^Gal. 6:16. “And” should read, “even,” for they are the Israel of God.

• Eph. 2:21. “The whole structure” should be “every structure.”

• Eph. 4:8. The footnote should add as an alternate translation instead of “a host of captives,” “or, ‘captivity captive.’”

• Eph. 4:11. The word and should not have been omitted before shepherds. The omission misses the point that shepherds and teachers are in the same category.

• ^Php. 2:7. The word born is an addition to the text. And “human form” should be “in appearance as a man.” The translation “form” is not from the same word as in “form of God” and “form of a servant” (2:6-7).

• ^Col. 1:15. “Firstborn over all creation” rather than “of,” for Jesus was not created; but he does serve in the role of the firstborn, who has preeminence over the other children.

• Col. 1:23, “all creation” should be “every creature.” (See footnote.)

• ^1 Tim. 5:17. The translation, “rule,” is open to abuse, with a connotation contrary to New Testament teachings on the style of church leadership. Other translations of the same word in ESV are “lead” (Rom 12:8), “are over” (1 Thess. 5:12), “manage” (1 Tim. 3:4-5,12), “devote themselves” (Tit 3:8,14). The NIV, “direct the affairs of the church,” better fits the essential meaning of this word.

• ^2 Tim. 2:24. The word evil is not warranted by the Greek, and makes no sense for those engaged in Christian service. Timothy was to be patient in times of difficulty, but that’s not the same as enduring or tolerating evil.

• Tit 1:1. The word their is an addition to the text.

• ^Tit 1:6,10. The word insubordination (insubordinate) speaks to breaking the chain of command in an organization and thus smacks of an ecclesiasticism not known in early church organization. The word here should be translated “rebellion/rebellious.” In 1 Tim. 1:9 it is translated, “disobedient.”

• ^Phm. 1:5. The translation misses the Greek chiasm. It should be “the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and the love which you have unto all the saints.”

• Heb. 6:6. Although “since” is a valid translation of the participle, a better translation would be “while,” for that would allow the possibility that they might yet be brought to repentance if they should quit crucifying again the Son of God.

• Heb. 10:25. “To meet together” is literally a noun, “our meeting.”

• Heb. 11:6. Not just those who “seek him,” but who “earnestly [or zealously] seek him.”

• ^Heb. 11:13. “Exiles” is a poor translation for it implies that they had been banished from some place. “Sojourners” or “temporary residents” would be better.

• ^Heb. 12:17. “To repent” implies that Esau could not repent, but the intent may be rather that he found no chance “for a change of mind” in his father’s granting of the blessing to Jacob.

• ^Jas. 1:4. The translation “perfect” implies more than the word calls for. It should be translated “mature” in this case.

• ^Jas. 1:18. The paraphrase “brought us forth” clouds the theological significance of the literal “gave us birth.”

• ^Jas. 4:5. The translation does not fit the context. Better: “The spirit he caused to live in us longs with envy.”

• 1 Pet. 1:1,^17; 2:11. “Exile” is too strong a word here. We have not been thrown out of our country. The word refers to one’s temporary residence in a foreign land. (ESV uses “stay” in Acts 13:17.)

• ^2 Pet. 3:10, “and then” is too vague. The literal translation is “in the which,” i.e., “in that day.”

• ^2 Pet. 3:10,12. The text is not talking about “the heavenly bodies,” i.e., the sun, moon, and stars, but rather the “elements,” the things that compose the planet Earth.

• 1 John 5:6. The literal “through water and blood” and “in the water only but in the water and in the blood” should be maintained for a proper interpretation. It is most probably an anti-gnostic argument referring to Jesus being the Christ, not just from his baptism to the cross but also prior to his baptism and through his crucifixion.

• Rev. 3:14, “beginning” should be “ruler” since God/Christ had no beginning.

• Rev. 4:7, “ox” should be “calf.”

TODAY’S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION: A REVIEW

C. Ermal Allen

This reviewer uses the New International Version (1984) in personal reading, study, preaching, and teaching. While aware of its shortcomings, I consider it the best overall English translation in the three critical areas needed for a translation to be of use: accuracy, beauty, and clarity. I will not, however, be using Today’s New International Version. Although this gender-inclusive attempt at making a politically correct translation has made some improvements over the NIV, a great many more of the changes resulted in less accuracy. And in many of the changes, whether more accurate translations or not, the clarity and beauty of the NIV is not to be found. Much of the new wording is awkward.

Comments in this review are about the changes in TNIV only , not about the NIV itself, i.e., about the shortcomings of TNIV that are also found in the NIV.

Most of the heat generated by this revision of the NIV will probably revolve around the changes in gender and number. This reviewer would prefer that the genders and numbers remain unchanged with teachers and commentaries explaining (in our gender-sensitive culture) that the historical use of “man” and the masculine pronouns does not reflect an anti-female attitude but is simply a literary device used in the absence of gender-neutral words. However, many of the changes in TNIV in this regard are not significant and not worth getting upset over. Nevertheless, some of the changes are significant and result in poor translation.

The gender-related changes are not, however, the most significant. The preview edition of the revised version makes a great many translation blunders. These problems with the translation, if not corrected in the final product, make it undesirable as a replacement for the NIV.

Improved Translation (over the NIV)

* Matthew 5:32 et al. TNIV “sexual immorality” is broader and more literal than the NIV “marital unfaithfulness.”

* Matthew 6:2 et al. “Truly I tell you” is more literal than the NIV “I tell you the truth.”

* Matthew 6:22 et al. TNIV “healthy” is better than NIV “good.”

* Matthew 8:13; 9:29. TNIV correctly replaces the future tense with “let it be.”

* Matthew 10:25 et al. “Beelzebul” is a transliteration of the Greek. NIV “Beelzebub” is an interpretation identifying this evil being with the Philistine god.

* Matthew 15:27. “‘Yes it is, Lord,’” with the addition of the words “it is,” fits better with the following words which literally read, “for even the dogs eat . . . .” NIV reading has her agreeing with his statement that it is not right to toss the children’s bread to the dogs, then adding the contrary observation that the dogs do eat the crumbs. The word but would have suited NIV reading, but the word for favors TNIV reading.

* Matthew 16:16 et al. Although we would be more comfortable with the more familiar “Christ” in this verse, it is a wise choice to use “Messiah” in passages such as this one. Both are transliterations of the respective Greek and Hebrew words that would be literally translated “Anointed One.” “Messiah” is to be preferred because of its connection with the Jewish expectation of the coming Messiah, prophesied in the Old Testament. One can only hope that the Old Testament translation will follow suit and use the word there as well.

* Matthew 21:42 et al. Although “capstone” was an acceptable translation, “cornerstone” is better.

* Matthew 22:21 et al. “Give back” is more accurate than NIV “Give.” Unfortunately TNIV does not also improve the translation in verse 17 et al. where “pay” should be “give.”

* Matthew 26:64. “From now on” is more accurate than NIV more vague, “In the future.”

* Matthew 27:46. Although there is some manuscript variation, the transliteration “Eli, Eli, lema” (Hebrew) is to be preferred over NIV, “Eloi, Eloi, lama” (Aramaic, compare Mark 15:34).

* Luke 1:15. TNIV “before he is born” (lit., “from his mother’s womb”) is better than NIV “even from birth,” for the unborn child was able to recognize Mary’s special place (see 1:41).

* Luke 1:37. “For no word from God will ever fail” is not only more literal but truer to the meaning than NIV “For nothing is impossible with God.”

* Luke 7:14. TNIV “bier” is much better than NIV “coffin,” perhaps less understood by American readers, but certainly increasing the reader’s understanding of the actual situation.

* Luke 7:47. TNIV “as her great love has shown” is less literal than NIV “for she loved much,” but it avoids the ambiguity in the English “for” which can mean “because.” She was not forgiven because of her love, but rather she loved in anticipation of being forgiven.

* Luke 16:23. “Hades” is the proper translation, rather than NIV “hell.”

* Luke 17:21. NIV marginal reading has become the textual reading in TNIV. The kingdom was certainly not “within the Pharisees.” Rather the kingdom, in the person of the King, was in their midst.

* John 1:16. This verse is translated more literally than in NIV and is a definite improvement. (The words “already given” have no corresponding words in the Greek.)

* John 1:51 et al. “Very truly I tell you” is closer to the original text than NIV “I tell you the truth.” NIV does not distinguish between John’s use of the double “Truly” and the other Gospels’ single “Truly.” Both are translated, “I tell you the truth.”

* John 4:23-24. TNIV “in the Spirit” is less literal than “in spirit” (“in Spirit”), but it is probably the meaning. (The definite article is often omitted in conjunction with a proper name. “God,” “Father,” and “Law” are other examples of proper names that are used interchangeably with or without the definite article.) Even in the Old Testament, God required worship to be “in spirit,” i.e., with the right attitude and with a sincere heart. Jesus is describing a change. Christians worship, not just sincerely and in the heart, but also in the Holy Spirit.

* John 5:10 et al. Translating “Jews” in some cases as “Jewish leaders” is certainly more in line with John’s intent.

* John 10:37 et al. TNIV “works” is more literal than NIV “miracles.”

* John 12:49. TNIV “to say all that I have spoken” is a little closer to the Greek than NIV “what to say and how to say it.” “How” could be understood to refer to the delivery or selection of words rather than the content, which is implied in the Greek.

* John 14:7. Both this reading and the NIV one have strong manuscript support. The earliest manuscripts lean toward TNIV. (Literally, “If you have known me, you also will know my Father.”)

* John 14:25 et al. Although “Counselor” was an acceptable translation for the Greek word, which literally means, “one who is called alongside to help,” “Advocate” is more consistent with the meaning of the word in 1 John 2:1, where TNIV uses “advocate” in place of NIV “one who speaks to the Father in our defense” (a pretty good definition of “advocate”).

* John 17:3. The word “may” has been correctly removed.

* John 18:1 et al. TNIV “garden” has correctly replaced “olive grove.”

* John 21:15,16. The word truly has been correctly removed. Its inclusion in NIV was meant to convey the difference between the two words for love in this passage. It is highly doubtful, however, that there is any significance in the two different words in this passage, a passage in which John used several pairs of synonyms interchangeably.

* Acts 23:6. TNIV “the hope of” has correctly replaced, “my hope in.”

* Romans 1:4. TNIV “appointed the Son of God in power” is more literal than NIV “declared with power to be the Son of God.”

* Romans 6:5. TNIV translates “the likeness of his death . . . also . . . of his resurrection” as “in a death like his . . . also . . . in a resurrection like his.” The likeness could refer to the symbol (immersion) in baptism; but since Paul puts the union in his resurrection at a time subsequent to the baptism–note the future tenses in 5,8–then he must have something else in mind. Also notice the point made regarding the death in verses 6-7. TNIV would thus appear to be better at this point.

* Romans 11:26. TNIV “in this way” is an improvement on NIV ambiguous “so.”

* Romans 12:1. TNIV “your proper worship as rational beings” seems to capture the thought of the two Greek words involved. The NIV “spiritual act of worship” lends itself to the erroneous view that New Covenant worship is contained in “acts” rather than attitudes. Other translations that emphasize “reasonable” also miss the point here. The worship he is talking about is the kind of worship that goes on in the mind.

* Romans 14:14. TNIV “being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus” is more accurate than NIV “As one who is in the Lord Jesus.”

* Romans 15:4. TNIV rightly connects “endurance” with “taught in the Scriptures.”

* Romans 15:5. TNIV “the same attitude of mind toward each other” is more accurate than NIV “a spirit of unity among yourselves.”

* Romans 15:9. TNIV “and, moreover” is better than NIV “so that,” although the word moreover could just as well be omitted.

* 1 Corinthians 3:16-17. TNIV “your midst” and “you together” accurately reflect the plural you in identifying the temple of God in this passage as the church rather than the individual Christian (as in 6:19).

* 1 Corinthians 4:1. TNIV “the mysteries God has revealed” is an improvement on NIV “the secret things of God.” Mystery in Scripture always (or nearly always) refers to something that used to be hidden but has now been revealed.

* 1 Corinthians 12:28. TNIV correctly lists these as gifts rather than persons with the gifts.

* 1 Corinthians 13:3. TNIV “that I may boast” is based on a different manuscript reading, probably the better one.

* 1 Corinthians 13:10. In light of the context, TNIV “completeness” is to be preferred.

* 1 Corinthians 14:16 et al. TNIV “inquirer” is a better translation than “those who do not understand.”

* 2 Corinthians 1:23. TNIV “and I stake my life on it” corrects NIV omission.

* Galatians 2:20. TNIV correctly adds the word now.

* Galatians 3:22. TNIV is more literal here than NIV.

* Ephesians 3:15. TNIV “every family” is the correct translation rather than “his whole family.” It’s too bad TNIV did not make the same correction in 2:21, “every building.”

* Ephesians 5:19. TNIV correctly changes NIV imperative, “Speak,” to a participle, “speaking,” for the participle shows how the main imperative, “be filled with the Spirit” (v. 18), is to be carried out. Unfortunately TNIV does not make the same correction to “Sing” (singing) in verse 19 and “Submit” (submitting) in verse 21.

* Philippians 1:27. TNIV “as citizens of heaven live” is more literal (although “of heaven” is added) than NIV “conduct yourselves.”

* Philippians 2:3. TNIV “value others above” is a more realistic translation than NIV “consider others better than.” We may value others above ourselves (as Christ did) even when we cannot realistically consider them better than us.

* Philippians 2:20. TNIV correctly translates the future tense of the verb.

* Philippians 4:19 et al. TNIV “of his glory” is better than “his glorious.” God’s glory often, if not always, refers to his nature rather than just a description of the thing mentioned (in this case, riches). Unfortunately TNIV does not make the same correction in several other places.

* Colossians 2:12. TNIV “working” is more accurate than “power,” for the word refers to God’s power in operation, not just in reserve.

* 1 Timothy 1:10. TNIV is more precise with its “sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality” than is the NIV’s “adulterers and perverts.”

* 1 Timothy 1:12. TNIV is more precise and suits the context better with its “trustworthy.” Saul the persecutor could hardly have been considered “faithful” (NIV).

* 1 Timothy 1:16. TNIV is more precise in speaking of God’s patience as immense. NIV “unlimited” could be misunderstood as unlimited in time, when that is just not the case.

* 1 Timothy 3:2 et al. TNIV “faithful to his wife” is to be preferred to NIV more literal “husband of but one wife,” in light of the usage of the similar phrase in 5:9 where NIV has “faithful to her husband.”

* 2 Timothy 1:8. TNIV “of the testimony” is not only more literal than NIV “to testify,” but it suits better the concept of testify. In the Bible, only eyewitnesses or prophets could testify to something. Others can only report the testimony.

* 2 Timothy 2:13. TNIV “remains” correctly represents the present tense.

* Philemon 6. TNIV “for the sake of” (Christ) is a better way to express the preposition eis than NIV “in” (Christ).

* Philemon 14. TNIV “voluntary” is more accurate than “spontaneous.”

* Philemon 15. TNIV “forever” is more precise than “for good,” which could be misunderstood as “for a good purpose.”

* Hebrews 2:14. TNIV “break the power of” is less subject to misunderstanding than “destroy.”

* 2 Peter 1:19. TNIV interprets more certain as modifying the prophetic word rather than inserting the word made as in NIV (which implies that the fulfillment made the prophecy more certain). However, by translating the phrase“as something completely reliable,” TNIV misses the opportunity to say what Peter probably meant, that the prophecy, since it is the word of God, is even more certain than the historical event.

* Revelation 5:12. TNIV “they were saying” is the correct translation. Scripture never associates angels with singing (as in NIV).

* Revelation 22:9. TNIV maintains the parallelism in the Greek by translating all three occurrences of the preposition, “with.” The NIV’s use of two different prepositions confused the meaning of the angel’s words.

Improper Grammar

* Matthew 15:5-6 et al. TNIV frequently uses plural pronouns that disagree in number with their singular antecedents, apparently as a concession to political correctness, in place of the standard Greek as well as English practice of using the masculine pronouns in a generic (gender-neutral) sense. One can only hope that people of other countries will not use modern translations like this one to help them learn English.

Faulty Theology

God (Creator) and Man (Creature)

* Matthew 4:4 et al. “People” misses the point. Man, as the creature in God’s image, depends on his Creator’s word for his every need. (The word of God here probably does not refer to Scripture but to God’s “Let it be” in taking care of his creatures. See context in Deuteronomy 8:3.)

* Luke 2:14. Changing “men” to “those” misses the point. God (Creator) has graciously taken notice of the plight of sinful men (creatures created in God’s image, but rebellious) and has made possible peace between them.

* John 1:4. The words “all people” in TNIV imply that the point is God’s inclusiveness whereas the real point is that the light of salvation has come from God upon his fallen creature, man. “Humanity” would have been acceptable here since the nature of mankind (finite, helpless to save self) is involved.

* John 2:24. The word “people” misses the point that Jesus (Creator, infinite, holy, all-knowing) was different from men (the finite and sinful creatures).

* Galatians 1:10. TNIV “human approval” is okay, but then the concept is watered down in the use of “people.” The contrast here deals not with God or people but with the type of authority, God (Lord) or Man (Subject).

* 1 Peter 1:24. TNIV “people” is too weak. The point is that human beings, unlike God, are only transitory, like grass.

* Revelation 21:3. TNIV “people” is too weak. The point is that now God is literally living among men (human beings}.

Individual Response

* Matthew 16:24-25 et al. Using the plural pronoun to modify the singular “cross” and “life” in order to avoid the word “his” is not only bad grammar, but it also misses the concept that the decision to become a disciple is an individual one, not a corporate one. There are corporate aspects to the cross–we are all one with each other because we have been united with Christ on his cross–but not in this passage. Jesus is talking about the necessity of each person denying himself or herself (losing rather than saving one’s life) and following Jesus, no matter where that decision might lead.

* Matthew 18:15-17. The plural pronouns obscure the point that church discipline deals with individuals, one at a time.

* John 14:21 et al. The plural pronouns obscure the personal relationship between the believer and the Father, and between the believer and the Son.

* Matthew 1:18. TNIV “and Mary was the mother of” misses the emphasis in Scripture that Jesus was born of a woman. (There is more than one way to become someone’s mother.)

* Matthew 18:18. The reading “death” limits the possibilities of interpretation. It would be better to keep the literal “Hades” and let the reader determine its meaning.

* Luke 3:16. Omitting “with” before “fire” makes the passage identical with Matthew 3:11, but its inclusion (in Greek) in Luke warns the interpreter not to make too much of the single preposition with compound object (a technical argument for the scholars, a discussion of which would require more space than appropriate here).

* John 3:27. Omitting the word him for the sake of inclusiveness misses the point. John received only what God gave him and Jesus received what God gave him. Both had ministries and appropriate gifts from Heaven, but John’s ministry and gifts were different from those of Jesus.

* John 5:24. TNIV “judged” is not to be preferred here over NIV’s “condemned,” for all will be judged (2 Cor. 5:10). The word is usually translated “judged,” but it often has the meaning of “condemned.” Indeed, TNIV translates the noun form of the word as “condemned” in verse 29.

* John 15:4. Changing “and I will remain” to “as I also remain” misses the point that Jesus’ remaining in the believer is conditional upon the believer’s remaining in Jesus. Literally, it reads, “Remain in me and I in you.”

* John 15:16. The conjunction and inserted before “so that” loses the connection between bearing fruit and answered prayer. NIV “Then” is a better rendering of the thought.

* Romans 1:5. TNIV “faith and obedience” replacing the NIV “obedience that comes from faith” still misses the literal translation, “obedience of faith.” Faith itself is probably the obedience in this context. (Jesus had preached, “Believe the good news.”)

* Romans 3:25. TNIV “through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith” strays from the literal translation in NIV “through faith in his blood.” TNIV removes the blood of Christ as the object of faith.

* Romans 6:17. NIV’s more literal “form of teaching” has been changed to “pattern of teaching.” The form probably refers to immersion as the symbol of death, burial, and resurrection–the word for teaching is didache–rather than a style of teaching (which would be meaningless in regard to obedience). In addition, TNIV “that has now claimed your allegiance” probably does not capture the essence of “unto which you have been entrusted.”

* Romans 9:31. TNIV misses the point of how Israel erred in their approach to God. Literally, “Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain unto law.” They became sidetracked into a pursuit of the means (law) and forgot the end (righteousness), but attained neither.

* Romans 10:4. The reading “culmination” instead of “end” eliminates one possible (and probably the most likely) meaning. Christ was not just the fulfillment of the Law; he also put an end to it as the standard of righteousness.

* Romans 12:3. TNIV translates “to each one as God has distributed a measure of faith” as “the faith God has distributed to each of you.” The Bible does not teach that God gives us faith (see Romans 10:17). Ministry gifts are given to us by God as a measure of our faith.

* Romans 16:1. TNIV calls Phoebe a deacon, but there are strong reasons, based on 1 Timothy 3, for believing that deacons had to be men.

* 1 Corinthians 9:18. TNIV misses the point of this passage. Paul has been insisting that he does have the right to receive pay for preaching, but he often gave up that right voluntarily. TNIV “misuse my rights” implies that it would have been wrong for him to use these rights. NIV “make use of my rights” fits both the context and the Greek.

* 1 Corinthians 14:28. TNIV “when alone” may misunderstand the significance of “to himself.” Paul may be implying that the speaker as well as God was aware of what he was saying even though he did not have authority to “interpret” for others.

* 2 Corinthians 2:14. TNIV addition of “as captives” is not only without warrant but it misses the picture. The triumphal procession of the Roman armies included captives, but also the victorious troops. Paul certainly did not mean that we are the captives.

* Galatians 2:11. Although TNIV “stood condemned” is a possible translation, surely Paul did not mean that Peter was no longer saved because of this behavior! The NIV translation, “was clearly in the wrong,” is certainly to be preferred.

* Ephesians 1:13. TNIV changes “having believed” to “when you believed.” Since the Holy Spirit is given at baptism, and since baptism could come some time after believing (e.g., Acts 9:9,17-18), it is best to stay with the literal translation of the participle.

* Colossians 1:5. TNIV “the true word of the gospel” is inferior to NIV “the word of truth, the gospel.” It is not just that the word is true, but that the word (the message) is the word of “the truth” (literally), a phrase used in the New Testament as a synonym for the gospel.

* 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22. TNIV applies the test to the prophecies by adding the word them. Then the test is good versus harmful. Surely the test would be agreement with the apostolic teaching (1 John 4:1-6) if it were being applied to prophecies. NIV in both of these verses is not only more literal but also more consistent with other Scripture.

* 2 Thessalonians 2:9. TNIV misses the contrast between the lawless one and the apostles, for the words used here, describing the works of Satan, are identical to the marks of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12), with the addition of the word false. The NIV is definitely to be preferred here.

* 1 Timothy 3:11. The phrase “who are deacons” is unwarranted. Indeed, if he is talking about women deacons, how could they be faithful to their wives (verse 12)?

* 2 Timothy 2:2. Changing “men” to “people” here ignores the New Testament emphasis on men as the official teachers in the church.

* 2 Timothy 3:17. TNIV “all God’s people” misunderstands the phrase “man of God,” which in Scripture always refers to an official leader (and thus not a woman) or possibly even to a prophet (which could be a woman, but not all God’s people). The passage, by implication, may be applicable to all God’s people, but application should be left up to the commentaries, not written into the text.

* Hebrews 7:11. TNIV, “the law . . . established the priesthood,” is backwards. NIV is correct in having the law based upon the priesthood.

* James 4:6 et al. TNIV uses “humble and oppressed” to translate the one word that NIV translates “humble.” The TNIV translation, along with its translation in this context of “shows favor to” instead of “gives grace to,” seems to be an accommodation to political correctness. In the first place, there is no reason to add the word “oppressed”–indeed the oppressed are not always humble–and in the second place, “show favor to” may be understood by the modern reader as saying that God is biased toward the oppressed. The passages where this OT quotation is cited are not talking about God’s view of the oppressed or even of the poor but of his willingness to forgive graciously those who humble themselves before him.

* 1 Peter 5:2. Translating “overseers” as “watching over them” loses the usage of this word as one of the titles of the elders of the congregation.

* 1 Peter 5:2. TNIV “not pursuing dishonest gain” is a valid translation but it seems to lose the force of the alternate translation in NIV “not greedy for money,” i.e., that the elders should not be in it just for the money. (Elders were often paid for their work among the flock.)

* 2 Peter 1:4. TNIV, “having escaped,” implies that the believer has already escaped the corruption of the world! The aorist participle with the aorist subjunctive does not necessarily imply a past action. It may indicate oft-repeated but independent incidents.

* 2 Peter 1:7. TNIV “mutual affection” instead of “brotherly love” misses out on the essence of this affection. It is an affection for one another based on brotherhood, not just mutual interests.

* 2 Peter 1:10. TNIV “to confirm” is a poor translation here. The word means “to make certain.” He’s not talking about checking it out but making it real.

* 3 John 5,10. The “brothers” in this passage are probably traveling evangelists (verse 7) and thus unlikely to include sisters or to be simply “other believers.”

Misleading Translation

* The poor grammatical structure actually becomes ridiculous in Matthew 18:6 et al. “If anyone causes one of these little ones . . . to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were drowned in the depths of the sea.” Now, it may be true that it would be better for these little ones to drown than to be led astray, but that is not what Jesus meant! The one who would be better being drowned is the one who causes them to stumble. Furthermore, the picture of several persons with one neck . . . !

* Mark 7:20-23. By using “you” instead of the third person masculine, TNIV has Jesus accusing his disciples of great wickedness. He was trying to show the origin of evil, from inside a person, rather than trying to accuse his disciples of being guilty of all sorts of sins.

* Mark 9:1. Jesus says that some “‘will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’” This reading, based on the perfect tense of the participle, sounds like the emphasis is on his disciples’ perceiving that the kingdom was already in their midst rather than seeing it come. The latter interpretation is more in harmony with the parallel account in Matthew 16:28, “before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

* Luke 11:8. Instead of NIV “boldness” and even earlier NIV “persistence,” the text has “shameless audacity.” This reading makes the friend a rude and selfish person, when the concept of “boldness” may simply mean that he is counting on his friend not to take offense by an action that would be resented in a stranger.

* Romans 9:10. TNIV informs us that Jacob and Esau were miracle children–they weren’t conceived by their mother but by their father! Actually, the text says that she became pregnant “out of one, our father Isaac.” TNIV reading, “at the same time,” is possible but not necessary.

* Galatians 1:2. The inclusion of “and sisters” in this verse implies that (1) Paul has women traveling with him or (2) Paul includes in the salutation all the Christians around him. Neither is an accurate understanding of his salutations. Paul’s practice was to list as “co-authors” his traveling companions, his fellow ministers. See Acts 20:4 for the ones that would be included in these brothers in Galatians.

Assaults on the Genuineness of the Text or the Inerrancy of Scripture

* Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11. The NIV sets apart these passages from the rest of the text with notations regarding their omission in many early manuscripts. TNIV sets the passages in italics, not giving enough weight to the evidence that the passages are genuine, and thus implying that they are not to be considered Scripture. Readers familiar with the King James practice of placing added words in italics would be especially sensitive to this implication. Furthermore the introduction to TNIV implies that these passages should be omitted altogether. The question is more complicated than TNIV assumes.

* John 19:14. The text here implies a denial of the inspiration of Scripture. In John 1:39; 4:6; 4:52, TNIV misses John’s use of time references, different from the usual Jewish reckoning from sunset to sunset. (The NIV puts the hour of the day in the text and its understanding of the modern equivalent in the footnote. The NIV footnotes also missed John’s usage, but TNIV puts the mistake in the text rather than the notes.) A case can be made in regard to each of these verses that the hour of the day in John (as opposed to other books written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the demise of the Jewish state) should be figured from midnight. For example, in John 20:19 the evening of the first day of the week is at the close of the day, not the beginning. (Evening is declared in Mark 1:32 to be after sunset.) John 19:14 is the crucial passage. If Jesus were standing before Pilate at noon, then John would be contradicting Matthew (27:45), Mark (15:25,33), and Luke (23:44), all asserting that Jesus was already on the cross at noon.

(1) Could the “sixth hour” reference in John be a scribal error? There is no manuscript evidence suggesting such an error, but it is nevertheless a possibility. If the translators believed this to be a copyist’s error, they should have left it up to the commentaries, with the text retaining “the sixth hour.” (2) Could John have been in error? Placing “noon” in the text of 19:14 certainly implies that TNIV editors believe he was, subtly denying the inspiration of Scripture. (3) John could have been using a time reference that meant 6:00 AM. If any modern equivalent is to be placed in the text itself, then this is the one that should be used.

Total Disregard for What the Text Says

* Acts 9:13 et al. Translating “saints” as “those who believe in you” or “believers.” There is no linguistic connection between the two.

* Acts 9:30 et al. Translating “brothers” as “believers.” There is no linguistic connection between the two.

* 1 Corinthians 14:26. TNIV addition of “and sisters” in this instance sets up a contradiction between this verse, which is talking about “up front” activities and verse 34, which requires the women to be silent (at least “up front”) in the assemblies.

Unnecessary and Unwarranted Additions to the Text

* John 10:1,6. Is there anything to be gained by adding the word Pharisees in these verses?

* John 13:19. NIV “I am He” is to be preferred to TNIV “I am who am I.” Literally, it is “I am,” but this is an expression that usually means “I am he,” as in 18:5 and also as in 9:9 where the man who had been blind said, “I am the man.” In 13:19, surely the implied predicate is “the Messiah.” “I am who I am” is meaningless unless it is intended to reflect on the divine Name of God as in Exodus 3:14, but is there enough in this text to warrant such a connection?

* Romans 3:9. There is no justification for adding the words the power of before “sin.”

* Romans 3:20. There is no justification for adding the word our before “sin.”

* Galatians 2:10. There is no warrant for adding the words “all along.”

* Galatians 5:17. TNIV change here is puzzling. Nothing in the Greek suggests the negative infinitive, “not to do.”

* Philippians 2:5. There is no warrant for TNIV to add the words, “In your relationships with one another.”

* Hebrews 7:26. TNIV adds the word truly without any justification.

Other Changes Not Necessarily for the Better

In addition to the following questionable changes, there are a great many changes that are merely different, no better nor no worse so far as accuracy or clarity is concerned. Many of those changes lean toward paraphrase, while many others appear to be merely change for the sake of change.

* Matthew 1:1. TNIV completely ignores the word biblos (NIV, record).

* Matthew 6:24. TNIV “be a loyal servant” and “faithfully serve” may imply that one could serve God and Money in some hypocritical or perhaps even inconsistent way. The point of the passage, however, is that service to God is so exclusive that one cannot serve Money at the same time. And likewise, service to Money is so exclusive that its servants cannot serve God at all (even though they may try and may even think they are serving him).

* Matthew 7:3 et al. If Jesus had meant “someone” rather than “brother,” he could have said so.

* Matthew 8:20. TNIV may have thought “of the air” was redundant, but that’s what Jesus said! Why leave it out?

* Mark 1:1. Although there are manuscript differences, it was probably unwise to omit “the Son of God.”

* Luke 18:5. TNIV “attack me” is more literal (“give me a black eye” or “beat me black and blue”) than the figurative “wear me out” of NIV, but did he really expect this woman to inflict physical harm on him?

* John 1:34. TNIV choice of the alternate manuscript reading, “Chosen One,” sets aside many ancient texts that read, “Son.”

* John 6:63. TNIV “full of the Spirit” is as ambiguous as the literal “Spirit” (“spirit”). It does not help the reader understand.

* John 5:31; 8:17. Changing “valid” to “true” in these verses does not make sense. The testimony of two witnesses was to be accepted (and thus valid), but that does not mean that it was necessarily true. Testimony of only one witness was not to be accepted, but that does not mean that the testimony would necessarily be false.

* John 3:15. The Greek in the best manuscripts supports either reading, but the alternative manuscript readings favor NIV “believes in him” rather than TNIV “life in him.”

* John 4:35. Was Jesus quoting an aphorism, or was he pointing out the time of year? A literal reading would favor the latter. The reason they were saying “four months more” was because the harvest was indeed four months away. This passage could be significant in determining whether the Gospel writers omitted one of the Passover feasts during Jesus’ ministry.

* John 5:41 et al. TNIV “glory” instead of NIV “praise” is more literal but is a strange way to render the thought in modern English.

* John 14:2. Is there reason to replace the literal “many rooms” with this less specific “much room”?

* Acts 4:2. TNIV omitting the word and misses the point that the priests were upset with the apostles for two things, not just because they were preaching the resurrection but also that they were presuming to teach the people at all.

* Acts 4:4. TNIV “believers” in place of “men” (which is given in the footnote as an alternate) assumes that the total number of believers was about 5,000, whereas “men” may imply that there were about 5,000 families–a significant difference in total number of adherents to the faith.

* Acts 7:44 et al. Replacing “Testimony” with “covenant law” is totally unwarranted. The former is the literal translation, and the latter does nothing to clarify what is meant.

* Acts 17:23. The last sentence in the verse is closer to a literal translation and is easier to understand in NIV than in TNIV. “What you worship” is a better way to describe God (even when unknown) than “the very thing you worship.”

* Acts 26:16. NIV “what you have seen of me and what I will show you” is much closer to a literal reading of the Greek than TNIV, “what you have seen and will see of me.”

* Romans 3:27. Law in this verse means principle, as in NIV. TNIV just clouds the issue being discussed, justification apart from the law.

* Romans 5:2-3,11. TNIV “boast” is more literal than NIV “rejoice,” but it carries with it too much of a negative connotation. Indeed, rejoice is an acceptable translation of the word. In verse 3, glory is a translation of the same word and would be acceptable in verses 2 and 11. It does not make sense to translate the same word two different ways without the context requiring a difference. It is also regrettable that the translators did not take this opportunity to improve on the NIV by following the variant and better attested manuscript reading, “let us rejoice (glory)” in all three verses.

* Romans 5:5. TNIV “put us to shame” is more literal than NIV “disappoint us,” but it is less clear. In fact, when in the context of hope, “disappoint” is a perfectly acceptable translation.

* Romans 6:15. TNIV has “the law” instead of NIV “law,” literally more accurate; however, in Paul’s writings, law and the law are used interchangeably. The point of Romans is not just that we are not under “the Law of Moses,” but that we are not under “law” at all, as a means of justification.

* 1 Corinthians 5:2-3. The Greek (aorist participles) favors NIV, “did this.”

* 1 Corinthians 11:33. TNIV “make everyone equally welcome” is a poor substitution for “wait for each other.”

* 1 Corinthians 14:33-34. The context (see verse 36) suggests that the phrase, “as in all the congregations,” goes with verse 34 as in the NIV rather than verse 33 as in TNIV. One wonders whether this change was based not on a re-examination of the text but rather as a concession to gender inclusiveness.

* 2 Corinthians 2:16. TNIV “aroma that brings death” and “aroma that brings life” miss the point. NIV is to be preferred. In the triumphal procession of the Roman armies there were the victorious troops as well as the captives. There were also animals (captured wild animals, in some cases, as well as the troops’ horses) and flowers. The captives, dirty and injured, had the “stench of death” about them. To some people, Christians smell like death. But in reality, we are the “fragrance of life,” represented by the victorious troops and also by the freshly cut flowers scattered by slave girls in the procession in an attempt to mask the odors of captives and animals.

* 2 Corinthians 12:7. TNIV reads the first part of the verse as the continuation of verse 6 rather than as the beginning of the thought in verse 7. This reading, however, would require an awkward construction following “think more of me,” with a compound thought afterward (linked by and, TNIV or): “than is warranted by” and “because of.” The NIV is much more natural.

* 1 Timothy 1:18. Although the word for fight in this verse is different from that in 6:12 and 2 Tim. 4:7, there is no reason to translate it differently here. TNIV changes the adjective good into an adverb well. It would have been better to keep NIV “the good fight.”

* 1 Timothy 6:2. TNIV “devoted to the welfare of” rather than NIV “benefit from their service” is a real stretch. It seems that embarrassment over the Biblical treatment of slavery has led the translators to go fishing for some way to tone down this verse.

* Hebrews 2:1. TNIV “the most” is less accurate than NIV “more.”

* 2 Peter 2:11. TNIV “do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord” is far less literal than NIV. NIV translation also fits the context very well.

* 2 Peter 2:15. TNIV Bezer is a strange transliteration. A transliteration from one manuscript reading would be Bosor, and from another, Beor. Since Beor is the name in the Old Testament, that would seem to be better.

* 1 John 2:5 et al. TNIV “love for God [or the Father]” opts for one of the two meanings of “love of God.” It could also mean “God’s love.” It’s best to leave “love of God” in the text and let the reader determine which is meant.

* 1 John 2:13 et al. NIV “have known” is to be preferred to TNIV “know.” There is a difference between the two concepts. The “fathers” don’t just know God, they have known him, implying a track record for their experience with God.

* Revelation 1:1. TNIV misses the point in “revelation from Jesus.” It was indeed from Jesus, but more than that, the book is a revelation about Jesus.

* Revelation 1:2 et al. See also 12:17. TNIV misses the point again in “testified to by Jesus Christ.” It is the testimony about Jesus as much as by him. In the Greek, “the word of God” is parallel to “the testimony of Jesus.” NIV preserves that parallelism; TNIV does not.

* Revelation 13:1 et al. TNIV uses “it” to refer to the beasts, but these are no ordinary beasts; they obviously have personal traits, so NIV “he/him” would be more appropriate.

* Revelation 13:18. TNIV “of a man” misses the point that the NIV saw, that 666 may not be a code number but rather “man’s number,” i.e., falling short of God’s number.

* Revelation 18:14. TNIV “human beings sold as slaves” eliminates the probable reference to false religion and/or promotion of immorality implied in “souls” as part of their trade.

* Revelation 22:6. TNIV “who inspires the prophets” is a real stretch. NIV “the spirits of the prophets” is literal and to be preferred. Let the commentaries discuss what it means.

The New International Version needs some revision but Today’s New International Version is not what is needed.