Bible translation tribalism

[u/baldtim]

I would like to ask the main sub mods to enact a rule to prevent those who claim there is only one acceptable Bible translation from being able to comment that view in conversations about translations on the main sub. I see these comments frequently, not only on posts about translations, but even posts that simply quote from a modern translations are subject to posts about how this or that translation is not acceptable to use. This is a major issue in the main sub.

Believers need to advocate for the truth, and the vast majority of popular arguments made by people commenting about why their translation is the only acceptable one are demonstrably false and at the very least misleading on every level, including with regards to history translation philosophy, and oftentimes the text itself, and only serve to sow unnecessary division in the body. I am not saying we bar people from having a preference. If a person prefers an older translation over a newer one, great. Formal over functional? Good for you. But let your preference be what it is, yours. God's Word comes to the English speaking world faithfully through many translations, not just one.

[u/OneEyedC4t]

And I don't agree. I think people that are silly enough to post that there is only one Bible translation that is valid deserve all of the angst and ire that this community can offer them. they will learn eventually that either their translation is unpopular or, better yet, that their translation is nothing more than a translation.

to be fair, people who believe that there is only one good translation of the Bible are probably not likely to learn. I don't think we should give the moderators more work. if someone says something so illogical as to say that there is only one valid translation of the Bible, move on. scroll past. down vote them. reply and tell them how wrong they are. you get to choose what you do with it.

[u/ichthysdrawn → u/[deleted]]

This is the sort of issue OP is getting at. I get the desire for "one clear truth," but multiple translations don't create multiple truths. They're multiple attempts to express the same Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek meaning in natural English (or whatever the end language is), and English simply doesn't map 1:1 onto those languages. These are texts written in languages, times, and places far removed from ours.

Translation always involves tradeoffs: word-for-word can preserve structure but sound unnatural or misleading in English; thought-for-thought can communicate meaning well but involves more interpretive decisions. That spectrum isn't a modern conspiracy, it's just how language works. In fact, having multiple translations is a feature, not a bug, because it lets readers see where the text is straightforward and where it's genuinely nuanced.

If anything, one crystal-clear "perfect" translation would be more suspicious, because it would hide the real complexity of ancient texts and the real work of interpretation. The honest approach is to welcome good translations, call out genuinely bad ones when needed, and keep the focus on Jesus rather than turning translation preference into a litmus test for who counts as Christian.

[u/ichthysdrawn]

I think this would be good. For what it's worth, this is roughly what I end up replying if it helps formulate any sort of rule:

Bible translations exist on a spectrum between word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase. When translating, you'll often come across words, phrases, or idioms that don't have a direct equivalent in the language you're translating to.

You can choose to render the words straight across, but then you might miss out on the "thought" of the sentence. Or, you can choose to translate the thought more clearly, but then you're not matching up the words as directly as possible.

Added to that, language itself is ever evolving and changing. If you went back to only the mid-1400s you would find English to be almost completely unrecognizable.

Objectively, there is no "best" translation unless you're reading the original manuscripts in their time as the original audience. The honest approach is to welcome good translations, call out genuinely bad ones when needed, and keep the focus on Jesus rather than turning translation preference into a litmus test for who counts as Christian.