I was talking to someone yesterday who was explaining why he didn’t use the NIV. He referred to it as a “dynamic equivalent” translation, and it wasn’t a complement. Strange as it may sound, it was the first time my attention focused on the word “equivalent” instead of “dynamic.”

Don't you find it strange that after many months with Jesus (we don't know how many), the disciples find themselves in a potentially fatal storm, and they ask if Jesus even cares? The context of months of ministry suggests that they did know how much he cared, but the way translations handle the passage you may be led to think they didn't know, which would be strange indeed.

Paul encourages us to “put on (ἐνδύσασθε) the full armor of God” (v 11), and again to take up (ἀναλάβετε) the full armor of God (v 13). The third imperative στῆτε tells us to “stand,” and then he follows with a series of participles telling us how to do this.

It is often argued by a small but vocal minority of people that modern translations omit the doctrine of the Trinity. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the accusation is still leveled against the NIV and all modern translations. But this is an issue of textual criticism and not theology.

Some people say they don’t trust the Old Testament because of all the so-called contradictions. One of the apparent contradictions often pointed out is found in Proverbs 26:4–5. Should you, or should you not, answer a fool?