Pay attention to how your Bible translation formats the text. Sometimes translators will use formatting to give readers clues about how to read a particular text.

For example, notice how the ESV formats Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Notice how verse 26 is formatted differently from verse 27. Verse 26 begins with an indention, but contains no other line breaks or indentions. The text is presented as simple prose like a historical narrative would be presented. The initial indention indicates that readers should read verse 26 as it’s own paragraph, or as a unit of thought.

Verse 27 is formatted with line breaks and indentions. The translators have formatted this part of the text as a poem, in which different lines are written in a parallel relationship to each other. The translators are giving you a clue that you should look for the poetic symmetry in the lines of verse 27.

Not every translation formats the text in the same way. For example, the KJV, NKVJ, and NASB usually start each verse on an new line. This makes it easier to reference specific verses. The ESV and NIV format prose into paragraph form. This makes it easier to follow the natural flow of thought in the original text. There’s not a right or a wrong way to format the text. The different formats have their own unique strengths (and weaknesses).

So yes, formatting makes a difference. Pay attention to how your Bible is formatted.

Many people are unaware that the chapter and verse divisions in our Bibles are only about 500 years old. The Bible was not divided into chapters until the 13th century, and the Bible was not divided into verses until the 16th century. In some ways, chapter and verse divisions are very helpful, especially in helping us to quickly reference specific parts of scripture. But for better Bible study, it’s important to remember that these divisions aren’t original. In some ways, they can actually make Bible study more difficult.

For starters, many books of the Bible have a natural structure that is often overlooked. For example, Matthew doesn’t have 28 chapters, it has five natural sections. The book of Acts has six natural sections, each ending with the phrase “and the word of the Lord continued to spread and flourish”. Chapter divisions can sometimes distract us from the more natural divisions intended by the author.

If we aren’t careful, chapter and verse divisions can cause us to miss the author’s natural flow of thought. It’s easy to read to the end of a chapter and then use the chapter break as a good place to stop. But this isn’t always helpful. For example, its not uncommon to hear people use Romans 13 (where Paul says that governments do not bear the sword in vain) to show that Christians are allowed to bear the sword against evildoers, without acknowledging that God uses governments to accomplish the very thing Christians are forbidden from doing in Romans 12. If it weren’t for Paul’s thought being divided with a chapter division, perhaps less Christians would draw incorrect conclusions about this text.

Another problem caused by chapter and verse divisions is that it makes it all to easy to grasp onto random scriptures and to use them for our own purpose instead of considering the wider context. How often have you heard Philippians 4:13, Psalm 33:12, and others misused in social media memes without any consideration to their original context?

Although chapter and verse divisions continue to play an important role in helping people to interact with Scripture, for better Bible study it’s best to try to ignore these divisions. Try to pay attention to the original author’s natural flow of thought.

The Bible was originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The problem is, most of us don’t know how to read those languages. The simplest solution to this problem is to pick a good translation of the Bible. Most people will simply pick the translation they are most familiar with, or they will pick out a translation because they find it easy to read. Although familiar translations may be easier to memorize, and readability is certainly important, for better Bible study, it is good to learn some basics about translation philosphies.

Translation is not always as simple as picking an English equivalent to words in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. There’s more to understanding what is being communicated than simply being able to look up words in a dictionary.

In order to illustrate this point, imagine you were asked to translate the following sentence into a foreign language: “The running back for the Crimson Tide has really been piling up the yards.” We could translate the sentence word-for-word into another language, but unless the reader had some basic cultural understanding about the game of college football, the sentence would end up sounding like nonsense. The reader would have to do a little bit of homework about SEC football before they could understand our translation. Another solution would be to try to rewrite the phrase so that someone from a different culture could understand the main idea without having to do extra work.

Bible translators run into these kinds of problems all the time. One approach to translating the Bible is to translate it “word for word”. Translators call this “formal equivalence.” This goal of this translation philosophy is to account for every word in the original language with an English word as much as possible. The problem with this style of translation is that the translation can sometimes end up sounding awkward.

Another approach is called “dynamic equivalence” or “functional equivalence.” This approach tries to determine what the original phrase meant, and then uses whatever words necessary to communicate that meaning to English readers. There is not as much emphasis on accounting for each individual word. The result is usually a more readable translation.

So which translation philosophy is best? On one hand, there’s a lot to be said for readability. The Bible was, after all, written in common, everyday language (see Bible Study Tip #31). But it’s also important to remember that God inspired the original words of Scripture. Details matter. Sometimes individual words can make a big difference (see Bible Study Tip #14).

In order to translate from one language to another, it is necessary to come to some conclusions about what the original words mean and how to best convey that meaning to the audience. This introduces certain degree of human understanding into all translations. One big advantage of formal equivalent translations is that it limits how much the translator’s own ideas can be introduced into the translation. Yes, a formal equivalence translation may sound more clunky at times, but there are plenty of resources available to help us to understand these difficult words and phrases.

Dynamic equivalence translations aren’t bad. They can be good, especially if you’re just wanting to causally read large sections of scripture to get the big picture (Bible Study Tip #13). But when we use them we need to be aware that what we are reading may or may not accurately represent the original text. For deeper studies, it’s important to have a good word-for-word translation.

If you want to know what kind of translation philosophy is being used, read the preface. Although most popular translations use a mixture of the two main philosophies, the King James Version, New King James Version, New American Standard, and English Standard Versions all lean more towards formal equivalence, while the New International Version, and the New Living Translation lean more towards dynamic equivalence. There’s also paraphrases, such as The Living Bible and The Message. Paraphrases aren’t actually translations at all. Paraphrases begin with an English translation, and then reword the translation into the most readable English possible. I don’t usually recommend paraphrases, unless we’re only looking to consult them similar to how we would use a commentary.

Translations are like golf clubs. Different translations are better for different purposes. But for better Bible study, it’s good to be familiar with the translation philosophy being used by your particular translation.

A good translation should, as much as possible, attempt to represent the original wording as it left the original author’s hand. One problem, however, is that the Bible isn’t like the Declaration of Independence, where we can go back and look at the original document. No “originals” have been preserved. What we do have are thousands of handwritten copies (manuscripts).

What’s incredible is that these copies are almost completely identical with one another. Although there are differences between manuscripts, a vast majority of the time these differences are very minor alterations. For example, sometimes manuscripts will have different spellings of a name, or perhaps will contain “scribal notes” that were likely added to clarify passages that might have been confusing. These differences between manuscripts are called “variants.” In almost every case, textual variants are easily explained, and they almost never make any significant impact on the meaning of the text. The striking degree of similarity between the manuscripts gives scholars a high degree of confidence regarding the original wording of the text.

But there are some textual variants that are more difficult to solve. That’s why most translations will offer footnotes that say “Some manuscripts add…” or “Some manuscripts do not have…”. Pay attention to those footnotes. They can help you to be aware of those places where scholars aren’t as certain about the original text.

When scholars try to determine the original wording, there are a few key pieces of evidence they consider. Most scholars will tend to give more weight to older manuscripts (although sometimes this will be debated). In the Old Testament this often comes down to a choice between the Masoretic Text (primarily medieval era copies of the Hebrew text) and manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament that dates all the way back to 250-150 BC!). The Masoretic text is newer, yet it contains the original language. The Septuagint is older, so although it is a translation, it may be based on even older and more original Hebrew texts. So when differences occur between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, which is more reliable? This is sometimes a tricky question to answer and scholars love to debate this sort of thing.

Sometimes textual problems can be solved simply by using logic. Where variants exist, usually the variant that most logically explains how all the others came about is usually presumed to be original. For example, in Mark 1:2 the NKJV reads “As it is written in the prophets“, while the ESV (following different manuscripts) reads “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” What follows is a quotation that combines Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. If the original text read “Isaiah the prophet”, it would be easy to explain why a later scribe would attempt to “correct” the text to simply read “the prophets”. But if the original text read “the prophets”, it would be more difficult to explain why a scribe would specify “Isaiah”. So while we may not be 100% certain which wording is original, it’s probably good guesswork to assume that Mark originally referred to Isaiah (which makes sense, since Isaiah is the more significant of the prophets he quotes). But, as with most all textual variants, it makes little to no difference as to the overall meaning of the text.

Since we want to know what the original author wrote, it is an incredible blessing to know that there are so many manuscripts standing behind our translations. Where uncertainty exists, it’s good to know why. And in all the other places, where our Bible doesn’t include those footnotes, it’s very reassuring to know that there is little to no uncertainty that we do in fact have the original words of the author.

Over several centuries the King James Version of the Bible has been the most widely used translation in the world. Of all the popular English translations, the KJV is most certainly the most elegant. It has a beautiful, lofty, and poetic feel to it. Despite it’s archaic way of speaking, it remains surprisingly readable.

For many people, when they think of the Bible, they think of the beautiful and lofty language of the KJV. This isn’t entirely a bad thing. When it comes to daily Bible reading, it can be a good practice to have a favorite translation and stick with it. Consistency and familiarity can aid in memorization.

But for better Bible study, it is good to remember that the Bible wasn’t written in high, lofty, special language. The New Testament was written in “common” or koine Greek (pronounced “koinay”). There have been numerous archeological discoveries of Greek manuscripts that have been discovered that show that the version of Greek used in the New Testament was the same kind of Greek people would use in other forms of communication at that time. It was just the normal language. The same could be said for the Hebrew and Aramaic texts in the Bible. They were simply written in the common languages of their day.

When Jesus taught, He used common language. When Luke documented the history of the early church, he did so in common language. When Paul wrote his letters, he wrote as a common person writing to common people. Yes, they were respectful and reverent towards God. Yes, their words are special by virtue of being inspired by the Holy Spirit. But they used the common vernacular of their day.

Although every translation has it’s pros and cons, this is one advantage of newer translations that try to put the Bible into everyday English. For Better Bible Study, remember that the Bible was written by common people for common people and it used common language.

The Bible presents itself to us as God’s word. Paul wrote that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (1 Tim. 3:16). Peter said the prophets wrote Scripture as they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). It was not uncommon for the prophets to attribute their words directly to God, using phrases such as “The word of the LORD came to me” (Jer. 1:4). Paul said as much when he claimed that he was writing “things God has revealed to us through the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10). When New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, they frequently attributed those writings directly to the Holy Spirit (eg. Heb. 3:7). The Bible is a divine book.

At the same time, the Bible doesn’t pretend to be anything less than a fully human book. The Bible says as much about itself. As Hebrews 1:1 says, “God spoke to our fathers by the prophets“. 2 Peter 2:21 says that “men spoke from God”. The Bible contains all the diversity you would except from a book written by dozens of men over hundreds of years. The writers spoke different languages. They wrote with different styles. The brought different experiences into their writings. They presented different perspectives and emphasized different facts. The Bible is a human book.

It’s important to remember that although the Bible is 100% divine, it did not simply drop from heaven on golden tablets, independent from human cultural and historical influences. It is filled with human fingerprints. When men wrote scripture, they wrote the words of scripture while they experienced real historical situations. Some authors wrote personal letters to address real life situations. Some authors wrote poems and prayers in response to real events they experienced. Several of the books even appear to have been compiled into their final form by editors, just the way other human books would be compiled. Luke even admits to using human sources to craft his book (Luke 1:1-4).

But recognizing the human element in Scripture does not mean that the finished product is anything less than 100% divine. The Bible is not 98% divine, but with a few human errors scattered throughout. The Bible is not 98% human, but with a few overarching divine ideas here and there. The Bible is 100% divine AND 100% human. Yes, the book was written by humans, but the Holy Spirit was involved in breathing out every single word. Yes, the book was compiled by humans, but they compiled scripture as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. In the end, God’s word is still God’s word. It is “perfect”, “sure”, “right”, “pure”, “clean”, and “true” (Ps. 19:7-9). Recognizing God’s word as divine doesn’t make it any less human. And recognizing God’s word as human doesn’t make it any less divine.

Here’s why this is important. We can recognize God’s word as inspired, and still ask questions about human authorship such as “What was the historical occasion that motivated the author to write this book?”, “When was this book edited into it’s final, canonical form?”, “How did this author’s culture and historical setting shape the way he was using certain images?” In the same way, when we identify the human author’s historical and cultural influences that shaped his writing, that shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that the book is any less divine. The Bible is both 100% divine and 100% human.

I have a circle of close friends who love to talk about the Bible with each other. It’s an incredible blessing. If you have friends like that, you know what I mean. Not only do we hold each other accountable, but we challenge each other. We ask each other questions. Sometimes we disagree with each other and have fun little debates among ourselves (and they really are fun, unlike many of the heated social media debates we see). We push each other for deeper clarity. Ultimately, we are always learning from each other’s studies. Not only does this lead to better Bible study, but it also helps us to develop and maintain a much deeper level of friendship with one another.

Unfortunately, I suspect that many Christians don’t have these kind of conversations with friends. For many, the Bible is just not a regular topic of conversation with their friends. For some, Bible conversations can feel forced or awkward. I don’t think they know what they are missing out on.

If you don’t talk about the Bible regularly with Christian friends, try it. Share with a friend what you’ve learned lately. Ask them what they’ve been studying. There’s always a chance the conversation just won’t take off the way you hope, and that’s okay. But keep trying. Maybe set up Bible study group. Maybe look to develop relationships with other friends who do share your interest in talking about the Bible. If you can find friends who will talk about the Bible with you, it will bless the quality of your Bible study, and it will bless your life.