The most literal common translations (after Young and LITV) are in the Tyndale family: the ASV, RV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, and Tyndale himself. The NRSV may also be classified as literal, despite its commitment to gender-neutrality. The NAB and older translations such as GEN, Darby, Weymouth, Montgomery, Lamsa, NWT, and TBV also tend toward the literal side. Free translations that nonetheless stay close to the biblical text are MLB, Moffatt, AAT, JB, NJB, NIV, TNIV, NET, and the ISV (excluding poetry sections). The principle of "dynamic equivalence" results in very free translations such as Norlie, GNT, CEV, NCV, NLT, NEB, REB, and GW, which is almost a paraphrase. The true paraphrases are PME, LB, CW, MSG, and CPV. INC is about as free as GNT, but also substantially rewrites passages to make the Bible more egalitarian.
Does the translator seek to fill a perceived void among English translations by presenting an improved translation philosophy?
Most translators believe they have found the right balance between the dominant philosophies of formal (literal) and dynamic equivalence (idiomatic). The HCSB, for example, calls its method "optimal equivalence." The ISV is "literal-idiomatic," and the GW aims at "natural equivalence." Other versions move toward one extreme in response to the other. Moffatt was one of the first to employ free translation (which is actually quite literal by today's standards). The LITV is another example; its introduction criticizes free translations and calls for a faithful, i.e., literal, translation based on the Textus Receptus. On the other side, the CEV castigates literal translation in its introduction, calling it only the first step in the translation process and something almost any scholar can do. The Cotton Patch Version is at the extreme, retelling the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters as if they were set in the 1960s American South. Jesus hails from Valdosta, Georgia, Annas and Caiaphas are co-presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Paul's sermon to the Athenians takes place in Cincinnati. The Message likewise moves beyond traditional paraphrase and is more a retelling of the text, going so far as to insert dialogue, use slang and contemporary references (hocus pocus, in the driver's seat, saloons, etc.), and directly address the reader where the original text makes a general statement.
Are sentences broken up, condensed, or restructured for easier reading?
One of the basic techniques of free translations is to break long sentences up into shorter ones. Particularly in Greek, writers use conjunctions and participles to connect ideas together, resulting in very long sentences. An English reader can lose his place among all the clauses. The downside of breaking up sentences (and usually deleting conjunctions) is that it may be less clear how the ideas are related to one another. This makes it much more difficult to interpret the text. The tendencies of different versions are apparent in the following table:
Where Greek is known for complex sentence structure, Hebrew is known for repetition. In their aim for easier comprehension, some free translations try to eliminate perceived redundancies.
Genesis 2:4 is the link between the creation account and the section on Adam and Eve. Since the two halves of the verse are similar, they are condensed and combined into a single statement in LB, NIrV, and CW. The GNT shortens the verse by rendering the heavens and the earth as the universe.
In 1 Samuel 18:4, Jonathan gives his battle gear to David as part of a covenant. The repeated and his before each item is eliminated in MLB, LB, GW, NLT, MSG, and HCSB (CW is similar). The result is a loss of the intended nuance, in which the reader visualizes each item as it is removed.
Psalm 19:7-9 contains a series of statements praising the law. The pattern in Hebrew is verbless clause, participle, verbless clause, participle:
The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; etc. (NASB)
The LB condenses the list to the extreme: God's laws are perfect. They protect us, make us wise, and give us joy and light. God's laws are pure, eternal, and just. Note that the poetry of the song is lost as a result of this recasting. (The LB renders the Psalms as prose rather than poetry.)
Ezekiel 29:11a also has a poetic structure: No foot of man shall pass through it, nor shall foot of beast pass through it (Young). The verse is condensed to remove the repeated words in MLB, LB, NEB, NIV, REB, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, NIrV, and CW.
Restructuring essentially means moving prepositional phrases and clauses from one part of a sentence to another, and sometimes changing from negative to positive, or passive to active. This is to some extent commonly accepted, and sometimes necessary for clear expression in English. Traditionally, translators do not move phrases from one verse to another, but with the recent popularity of near-paraphrases such as the CEV, this has changed. (This is especially evident in the Message paraphrase, which does not use verse numbers at all.) I have yet to do a detailed study, but generally speaking, the more likely a translation is to break up or condense sentences, the more free it is in restructuring them. One example of questionable restructuring is changing Paul's I am not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16) to I am proud of the gospel in Moffatt, Montgomery, CEV, NCV, and GNT. Ephesians 1 is also a good chapter to inspect for comparison.
A more drastic kind of restructuring involves moving entire verses or passages to another part of the text. Moffatt does this quite a bit in the book of John, believing that much of the book has fallen out of order.
How far does the translator go in interpreting certain texts?
Sometimes a translator may feel that the text as it stands is ambiguous. Traditionally, translators speak where the Scriptures speak, and remain silent where they are silent. The modern trend in translations, however, is to remove the ambiguity, thus explaining the meaning for the reader. Some versions go so far as to state that interpretation is the duty of the translator. This makes the Bible easier to understand, but critics contend that it keeps the reader from having to think about the text and may cut off the reader from the correct meaning if the translator misinterprets the passage.
In Luke 16:9, Jesus gives the "moral" of the parable of the unrighteous steward: Make friends for yourselves with the mammon of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will welcome you into eternal dwellings. Are the eternal dwellings heaven or hell? The NLT1 and NIrV use the word heaven, and Norlie refers to mansions. How unrighteous is the mammon? Weymouth translates tempting to dishonesty; PME calls it tainted, and AAT ill-gotten; in Tyndale and the CEV it is wicked. NEB, NIV, REB, NCV, GNT, INC, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, and TNIV simply translate it as worldly wealth (or similar), and in Lamsa it is only fleeting. Norlie adds however acquired, eliminating any positive or negative interpretation. CW rewrites, leaving out any mention of friends and speaking instead of securing a future for one's self. The boldest recasting of the verse is the Living Bible, which reverses Jesus' meaning completely: But shall I tell you to act that way, to buy friendship through cheating? Will this ensure your entry into an everlasting home in heaven? The LB's answer (added to v. 10) is, No, but the NLT1 returns the statement to its original intent by focusing on the steward's generosity rather than his cheating.
John 3:18 is simple enough, and even the free translations stay fairly close to the text. This makes it a good sample verse to show the strategy of the Amplified Bible. The verse in Greek has 23 words. All the other translations contain between 27 and 36 words in 3:18, but the AMP has a whopping 95! This is partly because wherever in the New Testament belief or faith occurs, the AMP adds (clings to, trusts in, relies on) or a similar exposition. In addition, each portion of the verse is translated and then paraphrased. Often, the AMP will translate a certain word three or four times before moving on to the next one. This technique may work well as a translator's guide, but there is a fatal flaw to expanded translations: a word in one context usually does not express its entire range of potential meaning. It is therefore unwise to see the entire semantic field of the word implied in its every usage. Secondly, as one looks at a number of verses, it becomes evident that much of this is highly interpretive. For example, AMP follows the Hebrew term Selah in the Psalms with [pause, and calmly think of that] (e.g., Psa. 46:7) But there are a number of competing theories as to what Selah means, and the AMP's insertion is not one of the better candidates. Essentially what AMP is doing is taking the material you would expect to find in footnotes, study Bibles, or a small commentary, and moving it directly into the text. So if you are concerned about whether readers can distinguish between the biblical text and the notes in a study Bible, then the AMP is your worst nightmare.
Romans 11:6 reads literally, But if by grace, no longer from works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. In context the meaning is clear, but the following translations give considerable expansion to assist the reader: Weymouth, William, PME, AMP, LB, CEV, GNT, GW, NLT1, and NLT2. MSG reads If they were only thinking of their own immediate self-interest, they would have left long ago, which is completely unrelated to the text.
In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul begins his discussion of marriage with the sentence, It is good for a man not to hapto a woman.Hapto means to touch, handle, or cling to. Traditional translations stay with touch, but others go further. The advice is interpreted or translated not to marry in Weymouth, AAT, William, AMP, LB, NIV, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, GW, and NLT1. Others are more explicit: to live a celibate life (NLT2), not to have intercourse, (Moffatt, Montgomery, REB), not to have relations (HCSB), not to have sexual relations (NET, ESV, TNIV, MSG), or not to have sex (NIrV–aimed at 6-10 year olds!). The most restrictive translations are PME (have no physical contact with women), MLB (let a woman alone), NEB (have nothing to do with women.), and GNC (abstain from all contact with women). The least restrictive is Lamsa, which says, It is proper for a husband not to have intimacy with his wife at times. See the section on debated punctuation for opinions on whether this idea is Paul's or the Corinthians'.
Opinions are divided as to whether 1 Corinthians 7:36 addresses (a) a father whose virgin daughter is passing marriageable age, (b) a man whose betrothed is passing marriageable age, (c) an engaged man whose passions are raging out of control, or (d) an engaged couple facing an immediate crisis. In a case like this the translations can hardly help interpreting the verse. The versions supporting (a) are RV, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, Lamsa, JB, William, GNC, INC, NASB, and GW. The (b) versions are Tyndale, GEN, KJV, Young, PME, Norlie, AMP, MLB, TBV, NKJV, NIV, NCV, KJ21, NIrV, NET, TNIV, and HCSB. Those taking the (c) scenario are Darby, Moffatt, AAT, NWT, RSV, LB, NEB, NJB, NRSV, REB, CEV, GNT, LITV, NLT1, ISV, ESV, CW, and NLT2. The NAB is the only translation preferring option (d). For myself, I lean toward option (c), but (b) is also possible. The MSG adds a fifth possibility in a substantial rewriting of the entire passage: a man committed to celibacy who decides he wants to marry a female friend of his.
To what extent is the sense of the verb communicated?
Summary: The results from these examples include some surprises. While the versions that best maintain the sense of the verb are mostly literal–Young the best, then NASB, ESV, HCSB, William, and ASV–some literal versions do very poorly, such as the Lamsa, TBV, and LITV. Even the KJV, RSV, NAB, and NKJV only succeed in half the examples chosen. Likewise, while the least attentive translations are mostly free ones–Moffatt, Norlie, NCV, NLT1, NLT2, NIrV, NIV, LB, CEV, GNT, and MSG–others such as the NEB, REB, and ISV do relatively well here. The GW and MLB likewise suffer generally but have a few shining moments here. Still, the issues involved are simple enough, and the number of errors high enough that all translations could stand to do better in this category. The issue here is not one of formal equivalence, but of carrying over the meaning of the word, which can often be done using a different form.
Attention to verb tense
One important example of the importance of clarity in this area, and of how English has changed over the centuries, is Romans 5:1. The KJV has the verse, Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The participle is confusing to today's readers: are we currently being justified by faith (as in Catholic doctrine), or has our justification already been accomplished (as in Protestant doctrine)? The Greek tense here is aorist, indicating punctiliar (at one point in time) justification. The tense is ambiguous in Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, ASV, Moffatt, Lamsa, PME, AMP, RSV, NJB, GNC, KJ21, LITV, GW, and MSG. A more specific translation would be something like, Therefore, since we have been justified by faith..., as evident from the other versions.
Mark 11:24 and Revelation 10:7 contain examples of a futuristic aorist: an event yet to occur, spoken of as if it has already happened–believe that you have received it and the mystery of God has been finished. Some translations render these as futures: Tyndale, Moffatt, Lamsa, Norlie, JB, TBV, NJB, NAB, CEV, NLT1, CW, and for Revelation only, AAT, MLB, GNC, GW, NIrV, TNIV, MSG, HCSB, and NLT2. (CW actually rewrites Mark 11:24 entirely but uses the future tense in doing so.) Other translations use the present or perfect tense to preserve the form of the verb, since the fact they refer to the future is evident from the context. (Note: in the Textus Receptus of Mark, used by GEN, KJV, Young, NKJV, KJ21, and LITV, the verb is in the present tense, but the effect is the same.)
One tense frequently mistranslated is the imperfect tense. Imperfects generally indicate that the action takes place repeatedly, progressively, or over a period of time. They can also denote the beginning of continuous action. Examples are Mark 9:31 (He was teaching...and saying), John 4:30 (they began coming to Him), and John 5:16 (He kept doing these things on the Sabbath). Tyndale, GEN, KJV, Darby, Moffatt, TBV, NKJV, GNC, LITV, MSG, and CW tend to ignore the imperfect, treating it as a simple past tense (He taught,they came, etc.). The RV, ASV, AAT, Lamsa, NAB, and TNIV do so in two of these three cases (as apparently do the LB, NCV, NLT1, and NLT2, though their paraphrasing obscures the distinction). Weymouth, Montgomery, Norlie, PME, NWT, MLB, RSV, NJB, CEV, GNT, INC, and GW get two of three verses right. The versions with the most attention to the imperfect are Young, William, AMP, JB, NEB, NIV, NRSV, REB, NASB, NIrV, ISV, NET, ESV, and HCSB.
Another neglected tense is the perfect. This form tends to emphasize a completed action with continuing results, or a past change to a state that continues to the present. A routine example is Hebrews 2:18. More sensitive versions will translate He Himself has suffered rather than simply, He Himself suffered. The less sensitive translations in this case are Tyndale, Young, Moffatt, MLB, NIV, NRSV, NCV, INC, GW, NIrV, ISV, NET, and TNIV. (PME, JB, NJB, and MSG paraphrase.) From this and the above examples it is evident that even versions that are usually careful will miss a distinction once in a while. A more striking example is 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. The progression is that Christ died,...He was buried,...He has been raised. Here the use of the perfect is clearly emphatic. But the only translations that bring this emphasis across into English are RV, Young, ASV, and NWT. Judging from the versions used in this study, it has been over a hundred years since a major Christian translation has gotten this right! (To be fair, the NET gives this as an alternative in a footnote.)
Two other perfect-tense cases deserve special attention because of their doctrinal implications. The first is Matthew 16:19. Jesus does not say that whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, but whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven. However one interprets the promise, the tense indicates that the apostles' words do not change the heavenly situation, but merely reflect it. The tense is properly translated in Young, William, PME, NWT, AMP, NCV, LITV, NASB, ISV, NET, and HCSB. (Weymouth's shall remain bound and AAT/JB/GNC's will be considered bound misconstrue the sense.) See the similar construction in John 20:23 for further comparison.
The other case is 1 John 5:1a: Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God. The same construction appears in 4:7 with regard to love. The tense indicates that being born from God precedes (and results in) belief in Jesus, just as it precedes the ability to love in chapter 4. For this reason, Calvinists use this verse to argue that regeneration precedes faith. Here the perfect tense is evident only in Young, NWT, MLB, TBV, NRSV, INC, LITV, GW, ISV, ESV, CW, HCSB, and NLT2. A startling fifteen translations paraphrase that such a person is a child of God or has God for his parent, which obscures both the tense and the connection with other passages about birth and rebirth in John's writings.
At least translations ought to get the present tense right. But even this tense is not that simple. Often, Greek writers will use the present tense to recount past events (the historical present). In Greek, as in English, this has the effect of heightening the vividness of the story. Two clear examples are Matthew 26:40 (He comes to His disciples and finds them asleep and says...) and Mark 11:27 (The chief priests and the scribes and the elders come to Him.). Since this convention exists in both languages, and with the same general effect–and since the context is almost always clear–there is no reason for translators to render these statements as past-tense verbs. The historical present remains intact in some older translations: KJV, RV, Young, Darby, and ASV, but then disappears. The NASB translates the verbs as past but helps by marking them with an asterisk.
One debatable verb is in John 5:2. It begins, Now there is in Jerusalem, at the Sheep Gate, a pool.... John uses historical present in 5:6, 8, and 14, but there is no evidence the verb is can be used that way. The reason this is important is that if the gate and the pool existed when John wrote, then the Gospel of John was written before Jerusalem was ransacked in A.D. 70. Of course, the traditional view is that John was written in the 80s or 90s. It is interesting therefore that Lamsa, LB, TBV, CEV, GW, NLT1, MSG, CW, and NLT2 are the only versions to say there was a pool.
First-class conditions
One of the most common linguistic errors, particularly for beginning Greek students, regards the first-class condition: an if-then statement in which the verb in the if clause is in the indicative mood. Here, the condition is assumed to be true for the sake of argument. Some have misunderstood this to mean that the author is stating the condition to be true, and that the if should then be translated because or since. Some translations use since to remove the uncertainty some readers might infer from the if. But such clauses are only true a third of the time in the New Testament.
The reason to use if instead of since is that the author is presenting a statement the audience will readily accept, somewhat like a rhetorical question, from which the author's point logically follows. An example in which the condition is actually false would be Jesus' rejoinder to the Pharisees: If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? (Matt. 12:27, NASB). The Pharisees, in accepting the first half of the statement, would nevertheless be unable to accept the implications of the second. Logic would then compel them to revise their position.
Three examples will suffice to show how versions handle true first-class conditions:
If we believe that Jesus died and rose again.... (1 Thes. 4:14)
If you call on a Father who impartially judges.... (1 Pet. 1:17)
If God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1 John 4:11)
Refreshingly, many translations retain the if. A number of versions use since or a similar rendering in one of the cases (usually 1 Thes.): Norlie, AMP, JB, RSV, NEB, TBV, NJB, GNC, REB, INC, GW, ESV, and HCSB. Two since's appear in Moffatt, NRSV, GNT, ISV, MSG, and CW. The LB, NIV, CEV, NCV, NLT1, NIrV, NET, TNIV, and NLT2 consistently render true first-class conditions as definite statements. It is noteworthy that the PME, while a paraphrase, maintains the form of the argument as most literal versions do.
Other verb issues
There are literally dozens of other grammatical issues that could be explored, including the various uses of participles and infinitives, mood and voice issues, may vs. might, shall vs. will, etc. A small sample of cases will have to suffice in the interest of brevity.
One example is the optative mood, a rare form expressing the greatest removal from reality. Optative verbs speak of something that might possibly happen, but which is not presently the case. An example is in 1 Peter 3:14. The PME translates this nicely: And if it should happen that you suffer 'for righteousness' sake'.... RV, Moffatt, AMP, NCV, and NIrV also excel on this particular form. Versions that use yet or even also heighten the uncertainty. Those that do not quite capture the sense of the optative are the older versions: GEN, KJV, Young, and Darby. The LITV departs from the others by translating as if the audience was currently suffering, which is explicitly ruled out by the optative mood. (It translates the even as truly.)
The imperative mood has to do with command, but can also be used for granting permission, especially in the third person. An example is 1 Corinthians 7:36, which ends, let them marry. The permissive nature of the imperative here is evident from the context–Paul is granting an exception to a more desirable ideal of celibacy. The NIV, NJB, CEV, NCV, GNT, NIrV, TNIV, and MSG, however, give the statement more force: They should get married.
The imperative is also the mood of prohibition, such as Don't cry. If the audience is already performing the action, the statement is more properly stated, Stop crying. In fact, this is exactly what is said to John in Revelation 5:5. John begins weeping in verse 4, and so Stop crying is the preferred rendering, as in William, NWT, AMP, LB, GNC, CEV, NASB, GW, NLT1, ISV, NET, ESV, HCSB, and NLT2.
Perhaps the most debated imperative in the Bible is in Ephesians 4:26a, which is literally rendered, Be angry and do not sin. There is no legitimate way of getting around the fact that Paul commands the Ephesians to be angry, despite the resulting difficulties in interpretation. But a multitude of versions re-write the instruction: If/when you are angry, do not sin.: Weymouth, William, PME, Norlie, AMP, JB, MLB, LB, NEB, TBV, NIV, NJB, GNC, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, NLT1, NIrV, CW, and NLT2. (Note: These translators would say they are taking the verb as a conditional imperative, but technically that would have to mean, Be angry, and if you are, you will not sin, which is absurd.)
A final example has to do with voice. In addition to active and passive voices, the Greek has a middle voice, in which the subject acts in relation to himself. One example is the permissive middle: the subject allows something to be done to or for himself. Such is the case when Ananias tells Paul, Have your sins washed away by calling on God (Acts 22:16). Clearly Paul is not cleansing himself of his sins; only God can do that. But many translations say simply Wash your sins away. The error here is more theological than grammatical, which may explain why so many literal versions miss the mark here. The translations most attentive to the permissive sense of the verb here are a motley assortment: Darby, JB, LB, NAB, NRSV, GNT, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, MSG, and NLT2.
Does the translator tend to overtranslate or undertranslate nuances and connotations?
One of the simplest clues to the tone of the text is punctuation. How a translation uses exclamation points is indicative of the translator's tendency to overplay or underplay nuances. For example, Micah 5:1 and Romans 4:8 are fairly ordinary statements that do not stand out as especially intensive in their context. Yet the first is given exclamation points in LB, NAB, GNT, NLT1, NET, MSG, CW, and HCSB. Romans 4:8 receives an exclamation point in AAT, William, GNT, and ISV. A surface examination in other passages suggests that Norlie and the GNT go bananas with exclamation points. Yet these marks are sometimes appropriate. Calls to lift up the voice and shout are properly rendered as exclamations, as in Isa. 10:30, yet the GEN, KJV, Lamsa, NWT, NEB, REB, KJ21, and LITV use very nonthreatening periods. Likewise, how statements such as How beautiful...! in Romans 10:15 should receive exclamation points (though one per verse is sufficient, despite MSG), but that sentence ends with a period in Tyndale, Montgomery, JB, LB, TBV, NJB, CEV, NCV, LITV, GW, NET, and CW.
As illustrated earlier with Luke 16:9's unrighteous mammon, a translator's word choice reflects his perception of intensity. It makes a difference whether Saul was angry with Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:30, NEB, GW, NET, HCSB), or whether he boiled with rage (LB, NLT1, compare MLB, REB). Most versions are appropriately emphatic here. As another example, Titus (2:9) is to instruct slaves to give their masters perfect satisfaction in William (similarly GEN, Moffatt, PME, AMP, MLB, RSV, NRSV), but only to try to please them in AAT, Norlie, NIV, NIrV, and TNIV (similar in LB, GNC, NLT1, ISV, CW, NLT2.) Another example is Titus' responsibility to parakaleo throughout chapter 2 (v. 6). Traditionally rendered exhort (Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, Lamsa, NWT, TBV, NKJV, KJ21, LITV), this word can mean anything from invite to beg. Most modern versions translate urge here, but some use the lighter word encourage (NIV, NLT1, ISV, NET, TNIV, HCSB, NLT2), JB has persuade, MSG has guide, CW teach, and the NIrV simply says help.
One final example from Titus shows the importance of giving conjunctions their proper value. Chapter 1 closes with a description of the damage caused by false teachers. In 2:1, Paul says that Titus should hold to sound doctrine. The Greek begins but (as for) you, a fairly strong contrast with an adversative conjunction (de). Most versions do well here with but. Various renderings of as for you also suffice to show the contrast in NEB, NAB, GNC, REB, INC, NET, and NLT2. The very weak conjunctions and and now appear in Young and PME. Translations with a tendency to eliminate conjunctions (especially de) as superfluous lose the explicit contrast here: Moffatt, AAT, William, Norlie, NIV, CEV, NCV, GW, NIrV, TNIV, MSG, and CW.
Speaking of contrast, the strongest way of showing it in Greek is with the particles men and de. It would usually be overtranslating to say on one hand...on the other hand–but not by much. A good use of this construction is in Matthew 9:37: men the harvest is great, de the workers are few. The vast majority of versions indeed show some contrast by using the word but; however, the and seen in Darby, Lamsa, and LB makes implicit the contrast that the author intended to be explicit and emphatic. MSG fails here by transforming the observation into two exclamatory statements without a conjunction.
One more emphatic construction to consider is the combination of the two Greek negatives, ou me. This double negative is frequent in the NT for things that are certainly not the case or will never, ever happen. Hebrews 13:5 is famous for using two ou me statements in parallel, connected with a third negative oude–a pentuple negative! An acceptably emphatic reading here is I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you (NASB). The version that does the most with this is the AMP: I will not in any way fail you, nor give you up nor leave you without support. [I will] not, [I will] not in any degree leave you helpless nor forsake nor let [you] down (relax My hold on you)! [Assuredly not!] The emphasis is otherwise most prominent in RV, Weymouth, PME, Norlie, NWT, LB, TBV, LITV. Bland versions of this verse are GEN, KJV, JB, MLB, RSV, NEB, NKJV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, GW, ISV, ESV, MSG, CW, and HCSB, with CEV being the blandest.
A more common example is John 10:28 (they will certainly not perish), which is most emphatic in Weymouth and least emphatic in Young. Nearly all other versions use the mildly emphatic never here and most other places ou me occurs. MSG alters the promise to They are protected from the Destroyer for good, which may be a bit broader than Jesus intended.
A final example of overtranslation occurs when the translator adds words such as very, really, and much without support from the text. This is evident in 1 John 3:1, which begins Behold, what kind of love the Father has given us...! An exclamation point is sufficient to show the joy of the sentence. But some versions have marvellous love (Weymouth, MSG), abundant love (Lamsa), wonderful love (William), incredible love (PME, AMP), wealth of love (MLB), great love (TNIV), much (NJB, CEV, GW, CW), and very much (LB, NLT1, NLT2). God's love is indeed marvellous, abundant, wonderful, and incredible, but these renderings are overtranslations of what John is getting at here.
How does the translator handle idioms and hyperbole?
Like all languages, Hebrew and Greek use figures of speech as an everyday aspect of speaking and writing. Hyperbole and idioms are among the easiest to identify and the hardest to translate clearly. The translator wants to communicate the meaning, which would have been clear to the original audience, but still maintain the vividness, distance, or imagery of the expression. One thinks first of euphemisms, such as Adam knowing his wife in Gen. 4:1, or the thigh as a reference to the reproductive system (Gen. 46:26; 47:29; Num. 5:27; Judg. 8:30). English euphemisms may not be as subtle, and most translations either render the expressions literally (Adam knew Eve, KJV) or make the meaning fairly explicit (Adam made love to/slept with Eve, NLT1, NIrV). Another option, common for the thigh references, is to paraphrase so that the term never appears.
Idioms
The first of three examples of Greek idiom is the standard greeting. When Jesus appears to the women after His resurrection, He says, Chairete (Matt. 28:9; see also Matt. 26:49; Luke 1:28; Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jam. 1:1; 2 John 10-11). This could be translated literally as Rejoice! (as NKJV, HCSB). But most versions recognize the figure and thus use a corresponding greeting. Older translations prefer Hail! (Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Moffatt, Montgomery, AMP, RSV, TBV, KJ21, LITV). The generic Greetings! or Hello!, or the bland He greeted them appears in more recent versions (JB, NIV, NJB, GNC, NRSV, CEV, NCV, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, ESV, TNIV, NLT2). The translation Peace to you in Weymouth, Lamsa, PME, and GNT (similar INC) is confusing since that greeting actually occurs elsewhere. My personal favorite is William, Norlie, LB, MSG, and CW's Good morning!–which it certainly was. (It should be noted, however, that some versions use Good morning! as the greeting even when the text does not say what time of day the event took place–see Luke 1:28, MSG)
Jesus has many ways of telling people to pay attention. Truly I say to you and He who has an ear, let him hear are common. One special phrase appears in Luke 9:44: Put these words in your ears. Half the translations keep the expression or use a similar one: Tyndale, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Montgomery, NWT, AMP, CPV, RSV, TBV, NKJV, NRSV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, ESV, and HCSB. It is regrettable, though, that as many others simply have Pay attention,Don't forget, or something equally ordinary: GEN, Weymouth, William, AAT, PME, Norlie, JB, LB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, MSG, CW, and NLT2. This is a case in which the freer translations dull, rather than heighten, the vividness and vitality of the text.
A third expression shows the opposite tendency; the literal translations tend to veil what is fairly explicit in the expression. In Galatians 5:12, Paul is furious with teachers who claimed the Galatians had to be circumcised: I wish that those who trouble you would even apokopto themselves! The verb in question has to do with cutting off parts of the body, and is often used to refer to castration or emasculation. Mind you, it does not always have that meaning, and could possibly be translated be cut off, (GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, AMP, TBV, KJ21, LITV). Tyndale, PME, Norlie, and LB understand the verb to mean the teachers should simply leave the Galatians alone, and Lamsa calls for explusion. But in the context of circumcision, the intended meaning is obvious: Paul wishes the knife would slip (as JB, INC). So these translations are in effect adding a euphemism rather than removing one. But the majority of translations render the verb explicitly as having to do with emasculation or similar mutilation: Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, AAT, William, NWT, RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, NASB, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, MSG, CW, HCSB, and NLT2.
Hyperbole
In English, love and hatred are mutually exclusive. In the biblical languages, one may not rule out the other. In fact, the two words may simply designate differing relative levels or kinds of love. This helps explain how God could love Jacob and hate Esau (Mal. 1:2-3), love the righteous and hate the wicked (Psa. 11:5), and yet love the world (John 3:16). The meaning of this idiom is shown by how Matthew and Luke (writing in Greek) handle Jesus' statement (in Aramaic) that His disciples must hate their families to follow him. Luke translates literally (14:26), while Matthew gives the interpretation (10:27).
Using Deuteronomy 21:15 as a test case–two wives, one loved, one hated–we see that few English versions translate literally here: GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, KJ21, LITV, and (surprisingly) MSG. Some use loved and disliked: AMP, MLB, RSV, NAB, NRSV, or slighted, as the AAT has it. More commonly, the hated wife is unloved: JB, LB, NEB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, REB, NCV, NASB, GW, NLT, NIrV, ESV, HCSB. The GNT and CW paraphrase so that only the man's favorite wife receives mention. This last rendering, despite the unnecessary paraphrasing, comes closest to an honest translation since the other wife is not necessarily unloved or even disliked, simply loved less.
Some hyperboles are less problematic, and few translations try to avoid them. Joshua 8:17 is an example. A clever ambush drew out the enemy's forces, so that not a man remained to defend Ai and Beth-El. Clearly this is hyperbole; not every last male in the city would have been able to rush out to battle. Inevitably, someone would be sick, recovering from the previous battle, or engaged in necessary business. The MLB and LB remove the hyperbole by referring to troops or soldiers rather than men, but all other versions have not a man or an equivalent expression. It is worth noticing that gender-neutral translations do not have the women and children also rushing out to battle, though the change to not a person might have been tempting. (MSG's not a soul comes closest to this.)
Other hyperboles are difficult but do not lend themselves to softening. Matthew 5:29 is such a case: Jesus recommends tearing out an eye if it causes you to sin, because it is better to go through life one-eyed then go to hell with both. Only one version softens the expression; CW reads, If there's anything that keeps leading you into sin, you need to get rid of it, even if it's as valuable to you as one of your eyes. It's better to go without an eye than to go on sinning and lose eternal life. Note that as a Seventh Day Adventist version, this paraphrase also removes the reference to hell.
A more joyful hyperbole occurs when the people celebrate Solomon's becoming king. The people made so much noise rejoicing that the earth rent with the sound of them (1 Kgs. 1:40, KJV, KJ21, similar Young, Darby, ASV, AAT). In other words, it split open (as NWT, JB, MLB, RSV, NEB, NJB, NAB, REB, ESV, HCSB, similar LITV). Obviously, the ground did not literally break apart. And so the NKJV "wimps out" by saying the earth seemed to split open. Still, this is better than what most other versions do, simply saying that the ground shook (which can literally happen and thus is not a hyperbole): Lamsa, NIV, NRSV, NCV, GNT, NASB, GW, NLT, NIrV, NET, CW, similar AMP, MSG. The Hebrew word means to break open, not to shake. The GEN takes the middle ground, having rág (rang) in the text with brake in the margin. Worst of all is the LB, whose crowd is merely noisy.
Are technical or specialized terms translated with proper distinctions?
This question is a complicated one, since few versions seem to have a consistent policy regarding doctrinal and other technical language. What follows is a summary of a survey of how the various versions render 21 such terms in specific instances. (Tyndale, AAT, Lamsa, Norlie, and NET were not included in this survey.) The reader who wishes to replicate this study may use these examples:
Group 1: generations (Gen. 2:4); Sanhedrin (Matt. 5:22); church (1 Cor. 1:2); saint (1 Cor. 1:2); bishop (1 Tim. 3:1)
Group 4: mercy seat (Exod. 26:34; Heb. 9:5); Ark of the Testimony (Exod. 26:34; Heb. 9:5); Holy of Holies (Exod. 26:34); cherubim (Heb. 9:5); Paraclete (John 14:16)
In summary, the translations in the Tyndale family follow a traditional or literal reading most (80-90%) of the time. This would include KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, KJ21, NASB, and ESV, as well as the GEN, Moffatt, Lamsa, MLB, and LITV. Young, Darby, and NWT are similar, but their commitment to literal translation sometimes leads them to render the original language more exactly than the traditional terms allow (for example, declared righteous instead of justified in Rom. 3:24). Translations outside the Tyndale family are more inclined to explain concepts than use doctrinal terms; of note here are Weymouth, PME, TBV, NIV, GNC, NLT1, ISV, NIrV, MSG, NLT2, and to some extent the GW and HCSB. The AMP, true to its name, stretches the words into lengthy descriptions about a third of the time. Sometimes a zeal to simplify the text can lead to extraordinarily bland renderings (such as lid for the mercy seat), or explanations that miss the meaning. This happens especially often in Montgomery, William, Norlie, LB, CEV, GNT, and NCV. Some, such as the CEV, go as far as omitting words such as salvation, repentance, righteousness, and grace since they are "not used in everyday English." The MSG goes farthest, avoiding even such simple terms as Lord and Amen, and also translates many names into English, such as rendering Elymas as Dr. Know-It-All in Acts 13:8.
The usual reasoning behind eliminating "church language" from the Bible is that the Bible was written in the language of the common person (koine Greek as street language) and therefore should be intelligible to the "man on the street" with no prior familiarity with Christianity. The objection critics raise is that most if not all of the biblical books were addressed to the believing community. The New Testament letters in particular were intended for congregations who were already well grounded in the apostolic preaching. In addition, portions of the Bible build on one another; one cannot expect to understand Revelation without first getting through Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. All three of these require familiarity with the Pentateuch and the Old Testament historical books. Romans and Hebrews assume and understanding of Genesis and Leviticus. Few free translations seem to realize this when they decide to render any page of the Bible to be easily understood by someone unfamiliar with the gospel.
Observations about particular renderings:
The word saint in Greek is actually the noun form of the adjective holy. But only NWT, NIV, NAB, GNC, INC, GW, NLT1, ISV, and NLT2 translate it literally in 1 Corinthians 1:2, and are inconsistent elsewhere. Most versions are content with the tradition, despite the popular misconception that only the best Christians are saints. The more paraphrased versions render the term as God's people, Christians, or church, even where the related words holy or sanctified are in the immediate context (as here). The TNIV defends the God's people rendering in its introduction as a way to avoid the theological baggage the word saint has taken on, but it seems unaware of the true meaning of the word.
Only GEN, Moffatt, MLB, NAB, GNC, INC, GW, and part of the Tyndale tradition use bishop, the other literal versions preferring overseer (e.g., NWT, NIV, NASB, ESV, TNIV, HCSB). The paraphrased versions seem to vary on the basis of denominational considerations, ranging from pastor (William, LB) to elder (NCV, NLT1, ISV, NLT2) or presiding elder (JB, NJB), to church official (CEV) or church leader (GNT, NIrV), to simply leader (MSG, CW).
The translation of Paul's term flesh is a matter of controversy. Does it refer to our nature as human/earthly bodies (Weymouth, William, NEB, REB, GNT), a general term for one's self (MSG, Rom. 8:7-8), the "old" life (MSG, 1 Pet. 1:24) or to the lower of two natures (KJV, PME, LB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, GNC, NCV, GW, NLT1, NIrV, CW, NLT2)? How about our desires (CEV)? Most literal translations leave the question for the reader by saying flesh and moving on.
The word fear is not so much theological as it is counter-cultural. The idea of fearing something sacred goes against both an iconoclastic society and children's-church notions of an imperturbable God. The clarification reverent fear may be helpful (PME, LB, NIV, NRSV, NLT1, TNIV, NLT2), but it may actually impede the reader's understanding to reduce the concept to simple reverence (Moffatt, Montgomery, William, AMP, MLB, NAB, GNT, INC, ISV, MSG, CW. HCSB), deep consciousness (MSG, 1 Pet. 1:17), honor (CEV), awe (GNC), or respect (NCV, NIrV). The GW is the freest version to retain the word fear.
Only one version avoids using the word faith. The TBV prefers to read belief (e.g., Rom. 5:1). The CEV does the reverse, rendering believe as have faith (e.g., John 3:16).
GEN and KJV somehow goof at Romans 5:11 by translating katallage as atonement. Elsewhere they always (correctly) have reconciliation. (This is the only time atonement appears in the KJV New Testament.) Only the KJ21 follows the KJV here. All others have reconciliation, except for MSG, which reads amazing friendship.
Only the NJB and INC use the word Paraclete in John 14:16. This well-known title of the Holy Spirit is more a transliteration from the Greek parakletos than a translation. The word can have different meanings in different contexts, but Advocate/Counselor seems to fit well here (Weymouth, JB, RSV, NEB, TBV, NIV, NAB, NRSV, REB, NLT1, TNIV, HCSB, NLT2). Also possible is the older preference for Comforter (GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Montgomery, LB, KJ21, LITV). The NIrV and MSG's Friend is definitely a weak rendering, but probably good enough for the NIrV's intended reading audience of age 6-10. The CEV and CW simply read Holy Spirit, and GW has helper (not capitalized). Helper capitalized, as in MLB, might actually be the best rendering since it covers the full range of possible meaning for this word. GNC expands to read another who will stand by your side.
Some translations may end up creating their own theological terms needlessly. Consider, for example, the word air in Ephesians 2:2 (the prince of the power of the air). The Greek is aer, a common (one might even say elementary) word. Yet the team of renowned scholars and editors of the HCSB chose to say atmospheric domain. The reference to evil spiritual powers in this verse is removed altogether in MSG, and the CEV has world for air. GW interprets so as to read spiritual ruler.
One final issue deserves comment here: the Jews in John's Gospel. While Jesus and His disciples were all Jews, John often uses the word to designate the Jews who were hostile to Jesus. It applies primarily to those in Judea and the area around Jerusalem (as opposed to Galilee), many of whom saw themselves as Jews par excellence. Examples are John 2:18; 5:16; 7:1; and 19:12. A few translations (LB, CEV, GNT, INC, NLT1, NET, TNIV, CW, NLT2) have tried to account for this by translating the word as Jewish leaders or Jewish authorities. However, if there should be a change at all, Judeans would be a better rendering. The TNIV also substitutes Jewish leaders for Jews in non-Johannine passages such as Acts 13:50 and 21:11, where the change is totally unwarranted. (For a fine discussion of John's usage, see Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, Rev. Ed., NICNT series [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], esp. 115-116.)
Does the translation perpetuate mistranslations that have appeared in other versions?
Probably the most well-known mistranslation is found in the Ten Commandments of the GEN, KJV, Darby, ASV, Lamsa, JB, RSV, NJB, NAB, KJ21, and NET (Exod. 20:13). The command, Do not kill should be Do not murder. The word is never used for lawful killing such as in hunting, warfare, sacrifice, or capital punishment. Nearly all the other versions understand this and use the more specific rendering. (CW changes the command to forbid hurting anyone.)
Some problems are more difficult, however. The word for the location of the myrtle trees in Zechariah 1:8 usually refers to the deeps of the ocean. It can also refer to underground sources of water, and so probably refers here to a spring that has covered the ground with water, making this an Edenic setting. The LB comes closest to this with the word river. Farthest removed (indeed, inexcusable) is the barren-sounding ravine of NIV, NCV, LITV, NASB, GW, and NET. Other unsatisfactory translations are valley (Darby, AMP, GNT, NLT1, NIrV, CW, HCSB), shade (Young, Lamsa, NAB), hollow (AAT, MLB), and shadows (MSG). The JB and NJB are creative but misled in saying the trees were deep-rooted. NEB, NKJV, REB. The GEN, KJV, RV, ASV, and KJ21 read bottom, which is too ambiguous to be meaningful here.
Context can have an effect on vocabulary, as in Paul's Athenian sermon (Acts 17:22). In older versions, he begins by accusing his skeptical audience of being superstitious (Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, KJ21) or given to demon worship (Darby, TBV, similar Lamsa). More recent versions recognize that while this is a possible translation, it is far more likely that Paul would begin with a compliment (i.e., that they were very religious,), and this better fits the direction of Paul's argument.
An oft-neglected distinction is the one between according to and in accordance with. This is readily seen in 1 Corinthians 15:4, where Paul relates Christ's death and resurrection to the Scriptures. If these happened according to the Scriptures (as in most translations), Paul knows about them from the witness of the New Testament; if they happened in accordance with the Scriptures, they are the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (as Weymouth, AAT, William, Norlie, PME, AMP, MLB, RSV, LB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, CEV, GW, NIrV, ISV, ESV, and MSG). Clearly the latter is the case.
Tyndale and the KJV have a few glaring errors that almost all other versions have corrected. The names Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and Calvary in Luke 23:33 come not from the original languages but from the Latin Vulgate. Readers should recognize that the original Scriptures nowhere ascribe the name Lucifer to Satan. It is the word for Morning Star; either a sarcastic title for the king of Babylon, or one of the figures in Babylonian mythology. Scholars debate whether Satan is even in view in the passage. But Darby, AAT, LB, and NKJV follow the KJV here for unknown reasons, and the GEN also reads Lucifer. Such is not the case for Calvary, where all versions except Tyndale, GEN, KJV, Norlie (!), KJ21, and CW have Skull. The anachronistic reading Easter, replacing the Greek word for Passover in Acts 12:4, is also unique to Tyndale, KJV, and KJ21. (The CPV mentions Easter but is set among 20th century Baptists, where the reference is more natural.) Another odd slip is in Hebrews 4:8, in which Jesus (should be Joshua) leads the Israelites into the Promised Land. Here the KJV and Darby may be forgiven in that the Greek names for Joshua and Jesus are identical, although Tyndale has the correct name here. Certainly the KJ21 updaters, working in 1994, should know better by now. Lamsa leaves no doubt here by reading Joshua the son of Nun. The GEN reads Jesus here but has a marginal note that Joshua is the intended reference.
One grammatical problem deserves mention here. In 2 Corinthians 10:2, all translations checked have Paul asking that he might not have to be bold/harsh when he is present with the church. But in the Greek word order, the word notmust modify present, not be bold. In other words, Paul is asking that he may be bold, though not present, so that he may address the issue before he comes. This puts the request in a whole new light, and shows Paul's respect for his audience. Several scholars have mentioned this in recent commentaries, and so perhaps in a few years, a new version will begin to reverse the trend.
What of cases where punctuation is debated?
Punctuation in the manuscripts varies in John 1:3-4. These are the alternatives:
...and without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life.
...and without Him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in Him was life.
Most translations choose the first reading, which is more in line with John's rhythm in the prologue. Only the AAT, NWT, JB, NEB, NJB, NAB, NRSV, CEV, MSG, and NLT2 choose the second reading. CW's paraphrasing makes it impossible to tell.
Who spoke John 3:16? With John's penchant for commentary and the lack of quotation marks in ancient texts, it is sometimes unclear who is speaking. Jesus' response to Nicodemus ends either at verse 15 or verse 21. Weymouth, AAT, RSV, NAB, GNC, GW, NET, ESV, and TNIV have the shorter quote, with John providing verses 16 through 21. But most translations end more traditionally at verse 21: Young, Montgomery, William, PME, Norlie, NWT, JB, MLB, LB, NEB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, INC, KJ21, NASB, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, MSG, CW, HCSB, and NLT2. GNT finds it unlikely that Jesus could have prophesied His crucifixion so early (as in v. 14), and so ends the quote at verse 13.
Similarly, John the Baptist traditionally speaks until verse 36, as Young, Montgomery, PME, Norlie, JB, MLB, LB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, CEV, NCV, INC, KJ21, NASB, GW, NLT1, NIrV, CW, and NLT2. But verses 31-36 seem to go beyond the Baptist's knowledge, so the quote ends at verse 30 in AAT, William, RSV, NEB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, GNT, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, HCSB. Weymouth ends at verse 34 for no discernible reason. Moffatt believes these verses are part of Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus, and moves 3:22-30 back to chapter 2. Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Darby, ASV, Lamsa, NWT, AMP, TBV, and LITV do not use quotation marks.
When Paul says Everything is permissible for me in 1 Corinthians 6:12, is he quoting opponents or making the claim himself? Most versions place the proverb in quotes: Moffatt, Montgomery, JB, MLB, RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, KJ21, GW, NLT1, NIrV, NET, ESV, TNIV, CW, HCSB, and NLT2. Others, however, make it Paul's words: Young, Weymouth, AAT, William, PME, Norlie, LB, NKJV, NASB, ISV, and MSG.
Another of several arguable quotes in 1 Corinthians is 7:1, the assertion that it is good for a man not to touch a woman (discussed above). Paul is quoting the Corinthians' statement/question without necessarily agreeing with it, in NAB, NRSV, REB, CEV, NIrV, NET, ESV, TNIV, MSG, and HCSB. But most versions see this as Paul's stated opinion: Young, Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, AAT, William, PME, Norlie, JB, MLB, RSV, LB, NEB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, GNC, NCV, GNT, INC, KJ21, NASB, GW, NLT1, ISV, CW, and NLT2. One may notice that only two (CEV, CW) of the versions that put the statement in quotes translate touch as marry, but about half of those without quotes do so. Again, Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Darby, ASV, Lamsa, NWT, AMP, TBV, and LITV cannot be consulted for this question, since they do not use quotation marks.
The syntax of Ephesians 1 is difficult to discern, particularly in verses 4 and 5. Does the phrase in love go with verse 4 or verse 5? It concludes the sentence in verse 4 in Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, AAT, William, Norlie, NWT, AMP, LB, NEB, NKJV, NRSV, REB, NCV, INC, KJ21, LITV, NLT1, NET, MSG, and NLT2. The phrase modifies predestined in verse 5 in Moffatt, Montgomery, Lamsa, PME, JB, MLB, RSV, TBV, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, CEV, GNT, NASB, GW, NIrV, ISV, ESV, TNIV, CW, and HCSB.
Does the translation distinguish between the singular and plural forms of second person pronouns?
This is one area in which the older-style translations have an advantage. English once had different pronouns for the singular and plural forms of you. Thee/thou was singular, and Ye/you was plural. By the time the KJV was translated, both forms were ordinarily pronounced alike but still spelled differently. Before long, the spelling caught up. Translation of ancient texts (whether the Bible, Egyptian manuscripts, or Greek epics) was traditionally done in Elizabethan English until the early 20th century, so that the GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, and ASV all have the older style and thus a distinction. Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, Lamsa, PME, MLB, RSV, NEB, and the original NASB also use thee/thou in prayers and poetry. The CPV's use of y'all serves much the same function but is less consistent. Modern translations sometimes indicate key shifts from you singular to plural with footnotes. The NWT places plural you in all capitals, and the KJ21 retains thee/thou for the distinction while otherwise using modern English.
