16. Why Are There Different Translations and Interpretations of the Bible?
Essentialism, a Hunter’s Theology — Chapter Two: The Bible
There are different translations and interpretations of the Bible because people have spent thousands of years trying to communicate its contents to other people.
And people have different cultures.
Different languages.
Different experiences.
Different understandings of God.
Different worldviews.
And different ambitions.
Some people translate scripture because they want others to understand it.
Some want to preserve the religious traditions they inherited.
Some want to correct what they believe earlier translators misunderstood.
Others want to defend particular theological positions.
And some want to protect the institutions, privileges, and systems of authority that benefit from those positions.
All of those motivations can influence how scripture is translated and interpreted.
That is why, in Essentialism, we do not begin by assuming that the most popular translation is necessarily the most accurate.
Nor do we assume that an interpretation becomes correct simply because people have accepted it for centuries.
We examine the work.
We examine its history.
We examine the decisions made by the people responsible for it.
And we examine the consequences of those decisions.
What translators preserve, change, emphasize, or remove can tell us something about what they want to protect.
But discovering their intentions requires more than noticing a difference.
It requires investigation.
Translation Is an Act of Interpretation
The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Those languages do not correspond perfectly to modern English.
Words can have several meanings.
Expressions can depend upon cultural knowledge that modern readers no longer possess.
Grammar can communicate distinctions that another language cannot reproduce easily.
And an expression that was ordinary in one historical period may sound strange, offensive, or confusing in another.
Translators must make decisions.
Should they preserve the wording as closely as possible?
Should they prioritize communicating the meaning?
Should they explain an unfamiliar cultural reference?
Should they retain language that modern readers might find vulgar?
Or should they replace it with something their audience will find more acceptable?
These are not insignificant decisions.
Every choice influences what the reader encounters.
Consider a familiar example.
Someone might say, “It’s raining cats and dogs.”
A literal translation could preserve every word while leaving readers in another culture wondering why animals are falling from the sky.
A translation that communicates the intended meaning might simply say that it is raining heavily.
Neither approach is automatically appropriate in every circumstance.
The translator must consider what the expression is doing.
And that requires interpretation.
Translation is not merely replacing one word with another. It is making decisions about meaning.
Begin With the Translation as a Whole
When Essentialists compare Bible translations, we do not begin by searching for one verse that supports our preferred argument.
We begin by examining the translation itself.
Who produced it?
When was it produced?
Who funded it?
What religious traditions influenced its translators?
What manuscripts did they use?
What principles guided their decisions?
Who was the intended audience?
And what did the translators hope to accomplish?
These questions help us understand the work before we begin evaluating individual passages.
A translation may consistently favor particular theological language.
It may preserve traditional expressions even when modern readers find them confusing.
It may replace ancient idioms with contemporary equivalents.
It may include explanatory notes.
It may omit passages that appear in older English Bibles because those passages are absent from earlier surviving manuscripts.
Or it may retain traditional readings because the translators consider them important.
Examining the translation as a whole helps us recognize these patterns.
And patterns can reveal priorities.
Sometimes those priorities reflect careful scholarship.
Sometimes they reflect legitimate differences in translation philosophy.
Sometimes they reflect religious tradition.
And sometimes they reflect attempts to protect an institution’s authority or a particular theological position.
The difference between these possibilities matters.
An Essentialist should not accuse someone of deliberate manipulation merely because a translation differs from another.
But neither should we pretend that translation is always free from institutional interests.
The Lens requires us to examine both the evidence and the consequences.
What Did They Change, and Why?
Some of the most important questions about biblical translation concern what translators have changed, added, or omitted.
Consider the history of translating passages associated with homosexuality.
The English word homosexual is modern. It does not appear in the ancient Hebrew or Greek biblical manuscripts.
Yet some modern Bible translations use that word or related language when interpreting ancient terms.
This can create the impression that biblical writers were discussing sexual orientation in precisely the same way modern people understand it.
They were not operating within our modern categories.
For example, the Greek terms malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 have generated considerable scholarly debate.
Their meanings and the behaviors they describe have been interpreted differently.
Some translations use language referring broadly to men who have sex with men.
Others use terms suggesting sexual exploitation or particular sexual practices.
Still others retain more traditional wording.
These choices matter because they influence how religious communities understand sexuality, morality, and the people they believe scripture condemns.
And those interpretations have consequences.
People have been excluded from religious communities, denied dignity, and subjected to cruelty because of teachings presented as unquestionable biblical truth.
An Essentialist must examine both the ancient language and the history of those interpretations.
But we must also distinguish between what can be established through historical evidence and what remains disputed.
The claim that every relevant biblical passage originally referred specifically to the exploitation of young boys, for example, goes beyond what the available evidence establishes.
Different passages use different terms and describe different circumstances.
We cannot responsibly replace one oversimplification with another simply because we prefer its conclusion.
Truth requires us to examine the evidence even when it complicates our argument.
And Anti-Greed requires us to confront the consequences when religious institutions use disputed interpretations to justify domination or cruelty.
What Happens When Translators Protect a Doctrine?
Translation decisions can also reflect theological commitments.
Consider the Trinity.
Different Christian traditions understand the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit differently.
Those disagreements influence how readers approach passages that appear relevant to the doctrine.
One particularly important example is 1 John 5:7–8.
Some older English Bibles contain an extended statement referring to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit as three who are one.
This wording is commonly called the Comma Johanneum.
It is absent from the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts and is generally excluded from modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament.
Consequently, many modern translations omit it or explain it in a textual note.
Someone comparing translations might assume that the modern translators deliberately removed a passage to undermine the Trinity.
But the manuscript evidence provides a different explanation.
In this case, the question is not simply why modern translators removed the wording.
It is also how the wording entered the manuscript tradition and came to appear in some earlier editions.
Sometimes the passage people accuse translators of removing was itself a later addition.
That is why provenance matters.
We must examine where a reading came from and how it was transmitted.
And we must resist the temptation to assume that every difference confirms our suspicions.
The Lens does not permit us to abandon Truth simply because a particular explanation supports our beliefs.
What Happened to God’s Name?
Another important example concerns the divine name.
The Hebrew scriptures contain the four Hebrew consonants commonly represented as YHWH.
This is often called the Tetragrammaton.
Many English Bibles represent that name with the title LORD, usually printed in capital letters.
Other translations use forms such as Yahweh or Jehovah.
These differences reflect translation decisions and longstanding religious traditions.
In Jewish practice, the divine name came to be treated with particular reverence, and substitute expressions were used when reading scripture aloud.
Many Christian translations inherited conventions influenced by that practice.
But the result is significant.
A reader encountering LORD may not realize that the underlying Hebrew text contains a personal divine name.
And a reader using a translation that preserves the name may experience the passage differently.
The choice can affect how people understand God’s identity, His relationship with humanity, and the language used in worship.
That does not mean every translator who uses LORD is attempting to conceal God.
But it does mean the decision deserves examination.
What was preserved? What was replaced? Why was that choice made? And what does the reader lose or gain because of it?
These are appropriate questions.
The same principle applies to passages in which translators must decide whether to use an explicit reference to God, a title, a pronoun, or wording that reflects an ambiguity in the original language.
Sometimes the difference is theological.
Sometimes it is grammatical.
Sometimes it involves manuscript evidence.
And sometimes it involves more than one of those considerations.
Our responsibility is to investigate rather than assume.
Respectability Can Change a Translation
We have already established that sex and profanity are not inherently sinful in Essentialist culture.
Obscenity and vulgarity are cultural constructs.
And the Bible contains language and imagery that many modern religious communities would consider inappropriate.
Consider Paul’s use of skybala in Philippians 3:8.
The word can refer to refuse, dung, or excrement.
Some scholars argue that it carries a considerably stronger force than the polite English expressions commonly used to translate it.
A translator might choose rubbish because the word communicates the general meaning without offending the intended audience.
Another might prefer a stronger expression to preserve the original statement’s impact.
Both choices involve interpretation.
But the decision to make a passage sound more respectable can change how readers experience it.
And that matters because respectability is not a virtue of the Lens.
Religious communities sometimes confuse polite language with holiness.
They may treat sexual references, profanity, or uncomfortable subjects as evidence that something cannot be spiritually meaningful.
Yet the Bible itself contains all of these things.
The problem is not that a text discusses sex.
The problem is not that someone uses profanity.
The problem is what people do to one another.
A person can speak politely while practicing cruelty.
Another can swear while demonstrating extraordinary Kindness.
The Lens demands integrity, not respectability.
And that principle applies to translation.
A translator should not automatically sanitize a passage merely because its original language makes modern readers uncomfortable.
Sometimes the discomfort is part of what the author intended to communicate.
The story needs to be told.
Interpretation Is More Than Translation
Even when two people read the same translation, they may interpret it differently.
Their cultures influence what they notice.
Their experiences influence what they consider important.
Their religious traditions influence what they expect the text to mean.
And their ambitions may influence which interpretations they prefer.
Consider two readers examining passages about obedience.
One might emphasize the importance of maintaining social order.
Another might ask what happens when authorities become unjust.
Both questions can be relevant.
But their answers may differ considerably.
Now imagine an institution whose leaders benefit from unquestioning obedience.
Those leaders may prefer interpretations that reinforce their authority.
They may discourage interpretations that emphasize accountability.
And they may present disagreement as rebellion against God rather than a legitimate question about human conduct.
This is where interpretation can become an instrument of Greed.
An interpretation can be used to protect power rather than communicate Truth.
And the more authority an institution possesses, the greater the consequences of that choice can become.
This does not mean every traditional interpretation is wrong.
Nor does it mean every new interpretation is correct.
It means we must examine the reasoning behind an interpretation rather than accepting it solely because someone powerful endorses it.
Greed Can Become Doctrine
One of the most difficult lessons in Essentialism is recognizing that a belief can be widely accepted and still serve Greed.
A teaching can be old.
It can be popular.
It can be defended by respected institutions.
It can be repeated for generations.
And it can still be used to justify cruelty.
Consider the religious arguments historically used to defend slavery, racial segregation, colonial domination, and unequal treatment of women.
People have appealed to scripture to justify these arrangements.
They have selected passages that supported their positions.
They have minimized passages that challenged them.
And they have sometimes presented their preferred social order as God’s intention.
But an institution’s ability to defend a practice with scripture does not establish that the practice reflects the Lens.
Greed breeds cruelty.
And when Greed becomes embedded in religious teaching, cruelty can begin to look like obedience.
That is particularly dangerous because people may believe they are doing something righteous while participating in systems that cause enormous suffering.
Respectability politics can reinforce the problem.
Those harmed by an institution may be told that their objections are too angry, too vulgar, too disruptive, or insufficiently respectful.
Meanwhile, the institution’s leaders continue using polite language to defend the arrangements that caused the harm.
The appearance of righteousness becomes a shield against accountability.
Essentialism rejects that shield.
No interpretation is exempt from examination because it has become traditional.
And no institution is exempt from responsibility because it claims divine authority.
Hunters Have Their Favorite Bibles
Within Hunter culture, people have their preferred Bible translations.
Some grew up reading one version.
Others prefer the language of another.
Some value a translation because it is familiar.
Others appreciate its readability, scholarship, or approach to particular passages.
There is no requirement that every Hunter use the same Bible.
But Hunters also inherit communal knowledge about translations.
They learn which versions preserve particular expressions.
They learn which editions contain significant textual differences.
They learn how theological traditions have influenced interpretation.
And they learn about the historical consequences of particular teachings.
This knowledge is shared through study groups, Hunter’s Lodges, communal meals, conversations, and educational materials.
An experienced Hunter might explain why a familiar verse reads differently in another translation.
Another might introduce someone to the history of a disputed passage.
Someone else might recommend consulting an ancient-language reference or examining the translators’ notes.
This is part of lifelong Hunter education.
Hunters inherit knowledge, but they also inherit the responsibility to examine it.
And that responsibility does not disappear because a particular translation is familiar or beloved.
The Essentialist Bible
The World English Bible, commonly called the WEB, is a familiar translation among Hunters.
It is also a public-domain English Bible, which makes it a practical foundation for adaptation and publication.
Over time, Essentialist communities have developed enough shared knowledge and interpretive traditions to justify creating an Essentialist edition based upon it.
That edition reflects the community’s understanding of scripture through the Lens.
But its purpose is not to replace the Bible with a different story.
The Bible remains the record of God’s relationship with humanity.
It remains the account of humanity’s developing understanding of Him.
It continues to document the consequences of Greed, God’s efforts to confront those consequences, and His intentions for humanity’s future.
The Essentialist edition is a way of presenting that record to a particular culture.
It reflects the questions Hunters ask.
It considers the knowledge they have accumulated.
And it provides opportunities to explain why particular translation or interpretive decisions were made.
That does not mean every Hunter must abandon their preferred translation.
Nor does it mean the Essentialist edition becomes immune to criticism.
An Essentialist Bible must remain subject to the same examination as every other Bible.
Otherwise, we would simply create another institution that expects people to accept its decisions without question.
That would contradict the very principles we are trying to teach.
Hunters Have Access to Additional Witnesses
There is another reason Hunters sometimes approach biblical history differently.
Within the Shaman States, Hunters can encounter entities who were present during biblical times.
Some may have witnessed events described in scripture.
Others may possess knowledge of the cultures, places, and circumstances surrounding those events.
That gives Hunters access to perspectives unavailable through ordinary historical scholarship.
A Hunter might ask an entity about a cultural practice.
They might seek clarification about an event.
They might compare an entity’s testimony with a written account.
And they might discover information that challenges a familiar interpretation.
But access to a witness does not eliminate the need for discernment.
Being present at an event does not automatically make someone an impartial witness.
An entity may have witnessed only part of what happened.
They may have misunderstood someone’s intentions.
They may possess incomplete information.
Or they may have reasons for presenting an event in a particular way.
The Sight provides access to additional testimony.
It does not guarantee that every testimony is accurate.
Hunters must still compare accounts, evaluate evidence, and examine the consequences of accepting a particular interpretation.
The Lens remains essential.
And the existence of these additional witnesses does not change the Bible’s fundamental purpose.
The Bible has not changed its purpose. The Hunters have expanded their understanding of its history.
That is an important distinction.
The Essentialist Bible is not intended to replace God’s relationship with humanity with an entirely different account.
It is intended to help Hunters understand that relationship through the knowledge available to their culture.
How the Lens Helps Us Interpret Scripture
The Lens provides an ethical framework for examining translations and interpretations.
It does not replace historical research.
It does not eliminate the need to understand ancient languages.
And it does not automatically tell us which manuscript reading is original.
Those questions require evidence.
But the Lens helps us examine how people use that evidence and what consequences follow from their conclusions.
Empathy asks us to consider the people affected by an interpretation.
Whose experiences have been ignored?
Whose suffering has been dismissed?
And who has been denied the opportunity to explain how a teaching affects their life?
Truth requires us to investigate the evidence.
What did the original language communicate?
What do the manuscripts show?
What did the author appear to intend?
And are we being honest about what remains uncertain?
Kindness asks whether an interpretation encourages responsible care for others.
Does it confront cruelty?
Does it make room for accountability?
Or does it provide excuses for causing harm?
Joy asks whether an interpretation helps people recognize goodness worth protecting.
Does it make flourishing possible?
Or does it unnecessarily restrict the happiness and well-being of others?
Anti-Greed asks who benefits.
Who gains power?
Who loses freedom?
Who controls access to knowledge?
And who is refusing responsibility for the consequences of the interpretation?
These questions help us distinguish between studying scripture and using scripture as a weapon.
They also help us recognize when our own preferences may be influencing our conclusions.
An Essentialist should be willing to discover that a favored interpretation is mistaken.
Even when correcting it is uncomfortable.
Even when the interpretation is traditional.
And even when the correction challenges something we have believed for years.
Truth is not something we protect by refusing to examine it.
The Responsibility of Interpretation
Every generation inherits interpretations from the generations before it.
Some are useful.
Some preserve important knowledge.
Some reflect careful study.
Others preserve misunderstandings.
And some protect systems of power that should have been challenged long ago.
We do not honor scripture by pretending those differences do not exist.
We honor it by studying carefully.
We compare translations.
We examine historical context.
We investigate manuscript differences.
We ask why particular words were chosen.
We consider how interpretations developed.
And we examine what those interpretations have encouraged people to do.
When we discover that a teaching has been used to justify cruelty, we investigate it.
When we discover that an institution has protected its authority at the expense of others, we hold it accountable.
And when we discover that our own understanding was mistaken, we accept responsibility for correcting it.
That is repentance.
Repentance is accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of one’s choices and demonstrating that responsibility through change.
Religious institutions are not exempt from that responsibility.
Neither are translators.
Neither are teachers.
And neither are Hunters.
Why Are There Different Translations and Interpretations of the Bible?
There are different translations and interpretations because scripture has been preserved, studied, and communicated by human beings across different languages, cultures, historical periods, and religious traditions.
Those human beings have different experiences.
They possess different knowledge.
They ask different questions.
And they sometimes pursue different ambitions.
Some differences arise from the difficulty of translating ancient languages.
Others arise from manuscript variations.
Some reflect legitimate scholarly disagreements.
Others reflect cultural expectations or theological commitments.
And some interpretations have been shaped by the desire to preserve power and privilege.
Essentialism does not require us to pretend those influences do not exist.
Instead, we examine them.
We investigate what translators preserved, changed, emphasized, or omitted.
We ask why.
We consider what the evidence supports.
And we examine the consequences through the Lens.
Within Hunter culture, this work is supported by generations of communal knowledge, the availability of different translations, the Essentialist edition based upon the WEB, and access to additional historical witnesses.
But none of those resources eliminates our responsibility to think.
The purpose of studying scripture is not to protect our preferred interpretation. It is to better understand God’s relationship with humanity and our responsibility within it.
The Bible has been translated many times.
It has been interpreted in many ways.
And people will continue asking questions about it.
That is not necessarily a failure.
It is part of what happens when a collection of ancient writings continues to matter to people living in different times and cultures.
Our responsibility is to approach that work with integrity.
To recognize where Greed has influenced religious teaching.
To correct what we discover is wrong.
And to remain willing to learn.
Save your faith for God. Ask me questions.
Questions for Comprehension
- What historical, linguistic, cultural, and theological factors contribute to differences between Bible translations?
- Why does Essentialism examine a translation’s overall history and priorities before evaluating individual passages?
- How do the Lens, communal knowledge, and additional witnesses help Hunters examine biblical interpretations without treating any one source as unquestionable?
Questions for Personal Reflection
- What Bible translation do you prefer, and how have familiarity, religious tradition, or personal experience influenced that preference?
- Have you encountered a religious teaching that seemed designed to protect an institution’s authority rather than encourage responsibility? What evidence would help you evaluate that impression?
- How would you respond if careful study challenged an interpretation you had accepted for many years?
Save your faith for God. Ask me questions.
Return to Ask an Essentialist Theologian
Go to Essentialism Question Seventeen: