Bible 102: When Bible Translations Can Influence Our Conclusions
Why comparing Bible translations can help us understand Scripture more faithfully
This article carries on from my previous one called Bible 101. This time I wanted to show some of the translation differences and how they might cause us to lean to a particular conclusion. This time with clear examples using the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NLT texts.
Have you ever read a familiar Bible passage in a different translation and suddenly noticed that it seems to say something slightly different? Perhaps a word has changed, a sentence has been expressed differently, or a passage appears to emphasise something you hadn't previously considered.
Sometimes these differences are simply a matter of English style. But occasionally, they can influence how we understand important theological questions, including God's sovereignty, salvation, marriage, church leadership and even the nature of Christ.
Now, before going any further, I want to be clear that I believe we can have genuine confidence in our English Bibles. They are the result of careful scholarship, and their differences don't mean that the message of Scripture has become unreliable. It's just that every translation involves interpretation to some degree, and a careful student will consider those interpretations.
The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and those languages don't always correspond neatly with modern English. Sometimes a word carries several possible meanings. Sometimes a sentence can be understood in more than one way. And occasionally, the original manuscripts themselves contain differences that translators must evaluate. Even translations described as word-for-word must make decisions about how best to express the original text.
And here's where I think we need to be careful.
Sometimes we may be drawing a theological conclusion not simply from what the original passage says, but from the particular interpretation our English translation has chosen.
Let's consider six examples from the New King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV) and New Living Translation (NLT).
1. Revelation 13:8
Was the Lamb slain before the creation of the world?
This is a fascinating example because a relatively small difference in sentence structure can change what we understand the passage to be emphasising.
Revelation 13 describes the worship of the beast and distinguishes those who worship it from those belonging to the Lamb.
But notice how the translations express verse 8.
Translation | How the verse is understood |
NKJV | The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world |
NIV | The Lamb was slain from the creation of the world |
ESV | Names had not been written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world |
NLT | The Lamb was slaughtered before the world was made |
Three of these translations connect the reference to creation with the Lamb being slain. The ESV connects it with the writing of names in the Book of Life.
So, which is correct?
The Greek wording allows debate about what the phrase “from the foundation of the world” modifies. Because it appears close to the description of the slain Lamb, the traditional interpretation connects the two.
However, Revelation 17:8 contains very similar language and more clearly associates the foundation of the world with names written in the Book of Life.
For this reason, a number of scholars favour the interpretation reflected in the ESV. I might add, I lean to the traditional rendering.
Why does this matter?
This is important. Consider the conclusions someone might draw.
A Christian reading the NKJV, NIV or NLT might naturally emphasise that Jesus' sacrifice was always part of God's eternal purpose. The cross wasn't an emergency plan after Adam and Eve sinned.
Someone reading the ESV might instead focus on God's foreknowledge, election and the relationship between salvation and His eternal purposes. From my perspective, I can see how the idea of election (God choosing people to be saved beforehand and others not) makes the ESV popular in Calvinist circles.
Neither emphasis is necessarily contrary to Scripture.
Indeed, 1 Peter 1:19–20 teaches that Christ was foreknown before the creation of the world, while passages such as Ephesians 1:4 speak about God's purposes in Christ before creation.
But these are different theological emphases, and Revelation 13:8 alone doesn't settle every question about election or predestination.
Nor does the traditional wording mean Jesus was literally crucified before the world existed. His historical death took place at Calvary.
The important lesson is that the location of one phrase in an English sentence can influence which theological idea a reader notices first.
And interestingly, this isn't primarily a disagreement about different Greek manuscripts. It's about how translators understand the relationship between words within the same passage. Especially where the way Greek sentences work allows both to be possible translations.
2. Genesis 3:16
Does the woman desire her husband or seek to oppose him?
This example has particular significance for Christian discussions about marriage, gender relationships and authority.
Following the disobedience of Adam and Eve, Genesis 3 records God's description of the consequences of the Fall. Part of the statement to the woman concerns her desire in relation to her husband.
But the translations don't all express that desire in the same way.
Translation | Key wording |
NKJV | “Your desire shall be for your husband” |
NIV | “Your desire will be for your husband” |
ESV 2025 (2016) | “Your desire shall be for (contrary to) your husband” |
NLT | “You will desire to control your husband” |
Now, those expressions can create very different impressions.
The wording “for your husband” might describe a longing or desire directed towards him, although the precise nature of that desire remains open to interpretation. The NLT, however, expresses a particular understanding of the Hebrew: a desire to exercise control.
That interpretation has sometimes been connected with a theological understanding of conflict between husbands and wives following the Fall.
The ESV controversy
This passage is especially interesting because the ESV itself changed its wording.
In its 2016 edition, the ESV said the woman's desire would be “contrary to” her husband.
That language could lead a reader to understand the passage primarily as describing conflict or resistance to male authority.
But in its 2025 revision, the ESV returned to the wording “for your husband”.
The translation committee explained that this preserved more of the possible meanings of the Hebrew rather than unnecessarily settling the interpretation for readers.
That's significant. It demonstrates that even translators committed to a relatively literal approach sometimes recognise that an earlier rendering may have been too interpretive.
Why does this matter?
The passage is frequently discussed in debates between complementarian and egalitarian Christians. Complementarians generally believe Scripture establishes some distinct responsibilities for men and women, particularly within marriage and church leadership.
Egalitarians generally believe leadership and ministry roles should depend upon calling, gifting and character rather than sex.
Both approaches have developed wider biblical arguments. Neither can be established or dismissed simply by translating one Hebrew word in Genesis 3:16.
We must also distinguish between describing the consequences of humanity's fall into sin and prescribing how Christian marriages ought to function. A description of broken relationships isn't automatically a command to reproduce those patterns.
That's an important distinction, especially when considering the wider biblical call to love, mutual responsibility and Christlike service.
3. Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders or have confidence in them?
This is a passage I think deserves particular care, especially where questions of church leadership and spiritual authority are concerned. It matters to me because I have experienced this passage, in my opinion, being misused to control people.
Hebrews 13:17 surely encourages believers to respond appropriately to those entrusted with spiritual oversight.
But compare the opening words.
Translation | Key wording |
NKJV | “Obey those who rule over you” |
NIV | “Have confidence in your leaders” |
ESV | “Obey your leaders” |
NLT | “Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say” |
Imagine somebody reading this passage in isolation.
The NKJV's wording might cause them to emphasise the authority of those who govern or lead. The ESV emphasises obedience, while the NLT expresses that instruction in particularly direct language. The NIV, however, begins by encouraging confidence in leaders, before also instructing believers to submit to their authority.
The theological and pastoral implications can be quite significant.
What does the Greek say?
The first Greek verb comes from peithō, a word associated with persuasion, trust and obedience. In this particular grammatical form and context, it can naturally communicate obedience. So we shouldn't suggest that the word merely means being persuaded and therefore carries no expectation of a response.
But its wider range of meaning is worth recognising.
The second verb, hypeikō, carries the idea of yielding or giving way. The passage is therefore concerned with an appropriate response to spiritual leadership, but it doesn't follow that church leaders possess unlimited authority.
Why does this matter?
If we take the opening instruction, isolate it from its context and treat it as an absolute command, we could wrongly conclude that disagreeing with a pastor is the same as disobeying God.
That can create a dangerous misunderstanding of spiritual authority.
And sadly, such interpretations have sometimes been used to justify unhealthy control.
But notice what the verse itself says. Leaders are watching over people as those who must give an account. Their responsibility is serious, and their authority is not independent of God's.
Elsewhere, Peter tells elders not to lord their authority over those entrusted to them (1 Peter 5:2–3). Jesus also contrasts worldly domination with the servant-hearted leadership He expects among His followers (Mark 10:42–45).
Of course, none of this means Christians should casually dismiss godly leadership. Scripture really does encourage respect, cooperation and appropriate submission. But biblical submission is not unquestioning loyalty to another human being.
Healthy spiritual authority serves people under Christ's authority; it doesn't replace Christ's authority over their lives.
And that's why the wider context is just as important as the particular English verb we happen to be reading.
4. John 1:18
The only begotten Son or God the only Son?
This example is slightly different because it involves both manuscript differences and translation choices.
John opens his Gospel with one of the most remarkable declarations about Jesus Christ in the New Testament. He identifies the Word as existing with God and being God, before explaining that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Then, in verse 18, John describes the One who makes the Father known.
But the translations vary.
Translation | How Jesus is described |
NKJV | “The only begotten Son” |
NIV | “the one and only Son, who is himself God” |
ESV (2025) | “God the only Son” |
NLT | “the unique One, who is himself God” |
At first glance, someone might wonder whether these versions are saying different things about Jesus.
The NKJV follows a manuscript tradition that refers explicitly to the Son. The NIV, ESV and NLT follow a different Greek reading that explicitly uses the word God.
There is also a separate translation question involving the Greek word monogenēs. Traditionally, this has often been rendered “only begotten”. Many modern scholars understand its primary meaning in these contexts as communicating uniqueness, while also recognising its connection with the relationship between Father and Son.
Why does this matter?
The NKJV's traditional wording may immediately direct readers towards the relationship between Father and Son.
The NIV, ESV and NLT make Christ's deity particularly explicit in this verse.
But we shouldn't conclude that the NKJV denies Jesus' deity, or that the modern translations diminish His sonship.
John 1:1 already provides an unmistakable affirmation of the Word's deity, and the wider Gospel repeatedly describes Jesus' unique relationship with the Father.
This is also another passage where the ESV's wording has changed. The 2016 ESV used “the only God”, whereas its 2025 revision reads “God the only Son”. The committee sought to express both the Greek textual evidence and the sonship indicated by the surrounding context.
One verse may raise a theological question, but the wider teaching of Scripture is essential when answering it.
We should be particularly cautious about making accusations of doctrinal compromise simply because a translation differs from the wording we know best.
5. Luke 17:21
Is the kingdom of God within us or among us?
Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God provides another example where a small difference can influence our understanding of an important subject.
The Pharisees ask Jesus when the kingdom of God will come.
His response includes a statement that has been translated in different ways.
Translation | Key wording |
NKJV | “the kingdom of God is within you” |
NIV | “the kingdom of God is in your midst” |
ESV | “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” |
NLT | “the Kingdom of God is already among you” |
The Greek expression entos hymōn can be discussed in terms of something being within or among those addressed. But consider how the different English expressions might be understood.
Someone reading “within you” might naturally conclude that Jesus is speaking primarily about an inward spiritual reality.
Someone reading “among you” might instead understand that the kingdom of God was already present through the person and ministry of Jesus.
Both the inward transformation of believers and the presence of God's kingdom are important biblical themes. But which is Jesus emphasising here?
Why context matters
The key detail is that Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. He is answering their question about when the kingdom will come.
It would be strange to assume that He was simply telling these particular religious opponents that God's kingdom was already dwelling spiritually within their hearts.
The wider context therefore provides a strong reason for favouring the understanding that the kingdom was present among them, especially in the person and ministry of Jesus.
Interestingly, the NKJV includes “in your midst” as a footnote alternative, while the NIV acknowledges “within you” as another possible rendering. These footnotes are useful because they show that the translators recognise the interpretive question.
It's a good example of why we should always ask who Jesus was speaking to, what question He was answering and how the passage fits into the wider Gospel.
A familiar English phrase can be meaningful and memorable without necessarily conveying the most likely meaning in its original context.
6. Philippians 2:6
What does it mean that Jesus did not grasp equality with God?
Philippians 2 contains one of the most beautiful passages in the New Testament concerning the humility of Jesus Christ. Paul encourages believers to adopt the same attitude of humility and self-giving love demonstrated by Jesus.
But the way different translations express verse 6 is particularly interesting.
Translation | Key expression |
NKJV | Equality with God was not considered “robbery” |
NIV | Not something to be used for His own advantage |
ESV | Not something “to be grasped” |
NLT | Not something to cling to |
The Greek word at the centre of this discussion is harpagmos. It is an uncommon word, and scholars have considered whether it refers to something seized, something held onto or something exploited for personal advantage.
These possibilities can affect how we understand Paul's description of Christ.
Why does this matter?
Someone reading the NKJV may particularly notice that equality with God was rightfully Christ's and not something He had unlawfully taken. The NIV emphasises that Jesus did not use His divine status for selfish advantage. The NLT communicates the idea that He did not cling to His privileges. The ESV's “grasped” can be understood in more than one way.
Some readers might mistakenly assume it means Jesus did not possess equality with God and chose not to seize it. However, the ESV also provides a footnote acknowledging the understanding of holding something for advantage.
These differences matter when discussing Christ's incarnation, His divine identity and the meaning of His self-emptying in verse 7.
But the passage's central purpose should not be overlooked. Paul isn't simply presenting an abstract discussion about the nature of Christ. He's calling Christians to humility, love and a willingness to serve others. That's because Jesus, who possessed the highest possible status, humbled Himself and took the nature of a servant. And Paul tells us to have the same attitude.
Sometimes we can become so absorbed in an individual Greek word that we miss what the passage is actually calling us to do. Good Bible study should help us understand both the depth of the theology and its significance for everyday Christian living.
So, can Bible translations shape our theology?
Yes, to some degree, they can.
Sometimes a translation makes a theological interpretation more obvious. Sometimes it preserves the original wording while leaving readers to work out its meaning. And sometimes it expresses an ancient idiom or difficult sentence in much more natural English.
None of these approaches is automatically wrong.
A more literal translation can be helpful because it often allows us to see something of the original wording and structure. But literal translations still involve interpretation, and certain expressions can be misunderstood in modern English.
A thought-for-thought translation can communicate the intended meaning wonderfully, but it may sometimes make a decision about an ambiguous expression that another scholar would understand differently.
And even translations using the same ancient manuscripts can arrive at different English renderings.
That's why I think comparing translations is such a valuable habit.
Why I encourage Christians to use two translations
I would encourage Christians, where possible, to have one translation primarily for everyday reading and another for more detailed study and comparison.
For everyday reading, something like the NIV or NLT can be particularly helpful because the language is natural and accessible. For closer study, something like the NKJV may help us notice details in the wording and structure that are less obvious elsewhere.
Personally, I've chosen to use the NIV for public reading and preaching because I believe it offers a good balance between clarity and faithfulness to the original languages. I also appreciate its approach to contemporary English, including gender language where the original text is clearly addressing both men and women.
I continue to value the NKJV for personal study, particularly its more formal wording and its footnotes identifying differences between manuscript traditions. At times, ambiguity causes me to look elsewhere, consider the inerpretatotion and study the whole context of Scripture.
But I also consult the ESV, NLT and other translations at times, because each can help me see the text from a slightly different angle. With the help of Logos software I am able to study words quite carefully, search interlinearly, and compare lexicons.
But that doesn't mean every Bible reading needs to become an academic investigation. Sometimes we need simply to read Scripture, receive its message and spend time with God.
At other times, particularly when a passage raises a difficult question or appears to support a significant theological conclusion, it's worth slowing down and comparing another translation. And if the differences really matter, a reliable commentary or examination of the original languages can help us understand why the translators made different decisions.
A final encouragement
I hope these examples don't cause anyone to become suspicious of their Bible. That isn't my purpose.
I believe Scripture is God's inspired Word and remains trustworthy and authoritative for our faith and lives.
But recognising the difference between the original biblical text and the decisions made by English translators can help us approach Scripture with greater care, and in my case with a responsible level of pastoral and theolgical integrity.
It can also help us recognise when a particular theological position rests on a reasonable interpretation rather than something the passage explicitly and unambiguously states.
We should be confident about what Scripture clearly teaches, humble where faithful Christians reasonably disagree and willing to reconsider our understanding when the evidence requires it.
Above all, we should remember that the purpose of reading the Bible isn't simply to win theological arguments or defend our favourite translation. It's to understand what God has revealed, how to know Him more deeply and to allow His Word to shape the way we believe, love and live.
And surely that's worth taking the time to get right.
© 2026 Darren Roy
Comments