This post requires a disclaimer: I am not an expert in Biblical languages. In fact, I barely know anything at all about them. I know nothing at all of Hebrew, and what I know of Greek could fit in a shot glass. I am basing my opinions on my references to Strong’s and BDB lexica, and I am aware that there are more nuances to translation than simple lexical definitions indicate. With that in mind, I welcome comments on this post from anyone who knows what I do not. I am not looking for opinions from those with a casual, “what’s the difference?” attitude. I am definitely not interested in the opinions of those who do not believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. This post will be nothing but picayune quibbling to you.

Bible translations should, as closely as possible, translate the exact words of the text. I do understand that all translation requires some interpretation, so all translations (yes, including my KJV) have some degree of Dynamic Equivalency (DE), but I maintain that the job of the translator is to translate. Interpretation is the job of theologians (including untrained theologians like most of us). That means I accept translations that are classified as Essentially Literal or Formal Equivalent (FE), and reject paraphrases and DE translations. My basic reason for rejecting them, including the one that is mostly not too bad (NIV), is that they begin with the intent of presenting what the text means rather than what the text says. While FE translations intend to give us the literal translation but are at times forced, because of linguistic difficulties, to go with a dynamic equivalent, DE translations throw their hands up in defeat and go straight to interpreting, so the reader is presented with the translator’s interpretation, however accurate that may or may not be, rather than a translation.

None of that is the point of this post. If it was, I would probably carry on much longer and eventually write something far beyond my knowledge. Some may argue that I already have, but they would be wrong. Just wait, though; I still might.

The real subject of this post is the various translations of a particular verse, 1Kings 14:10.

Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. -KJV

therefore behold! I will bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male in Israel, bond and free; I will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as one takes away refuse until it is all gone. -NKJV

therefore behold, I am bringing calamity on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male person, both bond and free in Israel, and I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jeroboam, as one sweeps away dung until it is all gone. -NASB

therefore behold, I will bring harm upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone. -ESV

The first phrase of interest is “and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall” (KJV). The KJV has translated it literally.

The NASB, well-known as the most literal of the FE translations, gives a DE translation, “and will cut off from Jeroboam every male person.” The others translate it similarly. This passage is, without a doubt, referring to all males. There is no other meaning implied, so in this case, the interpretation is accurate. However, it is an unnecessary departure from literal translation. Regardless of the language, everyone understands that only men urinate standing up. For those who are squeamish about such a descriptive phrase, all I can tell you is that God was not squeamish about it when he breathed it into the text of his Word (2Timothy 3:16).

The second phrase of interest is, “and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone” (ESV). Here, the ESV is the most literal translation, but it is not without a flaw.

The KJV and NKJV correctly say “the remnant of the house of Jeroboam,” while the NASB and ESV say “the house of Jeroboam.” What difference does it make? I don’t know. No doubt there is someone who does, but I don’t. What I do know is that God said “the remnant of,” so that is what we must say.

The ESV correctly uses the words “burn,” while the others use “take away” or “sweep away.” Again, I don’t know why it matters if they are taken away, swept away, or burned, but God's choice of words was “burn.” Rather than ask why that matters, shouldn’t we ask, “Why use any other word, when God chose this one?”

The KJV, NASB, and ESV all use the word “dung,” while the NKJV shies away from the literal translation and uses “refuse,” winning points as the most polite, if not the most accurate. What I find most interesting about this is the fact that the modern translations hang onto an antiquated word. Even the NIV says “dung.” I’ve spent most of my life in agricultural communities, and had jobs where I was responsible for thousands of dung-producers. I’ve spread countless loads of dung on fields in Wisconsin and North Dakota. I’ve never heard a single farmer or rancher use the word “dung,” unless he was reading from the Bible. These days, we say “manure” – unless we just stepped in it.

What is my point? I’m getting there. I chose to examine this particular verse because it was in my reading this week, and I thought it was interesting. While the discrepencies noted here may be insignificant, there are other passages in which poor translation does violence to doctrine.

Point #1: A translation that sets out to be literal, even though it can’t completely succeed, is far better than one that doesn’t even try. The inaccuracies represented here are probably not important, but then I chose to look only at those Bible versions that claim to be literal. Check it out in The Message, if you have a strong stomach.

Point #2: Even the best translation is just a translation, and even FE translators make unnecessary compromises with the text. All of us need to be willing to dig deeper into our study than superficial reading if we are to obey the command of 2Timothy 2:15, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”