How Do Major Bible Translations Render Ezekiel Ch 4 Differently?

Whenever I flip between versions of 'Ezekiel' 4 I treat it like reading a script director’s notes: same scene, different staging. Some translations follow the Hebrew Masoretic text closely so you get the full, stark instructions (lie on your side for 390 and 40 days, shave your hair, bake over dung), while others smooth or soften words for modern ears and note alternate manuscript readings. The really practical approach I use is to read a literal version ('ESV'/'NASB') and a dynamic one ('NIV'/'NLT') back-to-back and check footnotes — that trio usually reveals where translators made tough calls (grain names, the dung wording, or how explicitly to present the symbolism). If I’m curious about manuscript choices, I glance at the 'NET Bible' notes or an English rendering of the 'Septuagint' to see how ancient readers heard it; it’s amazing how those small differences shift the emotional tone of the chapter.

I love how this chapter becomes a translator's playground — every edition gives you a slightly different Ezekiel. From my quick hopping around, the most noticeable differences are wording choices and how blunt translators are about the gross parts. For example, verse 12’s direction to cook over dung is rendered very plainly as "human excrement" in many modern literal translations, but older or more cautious editions sometimes say "dung of cattle" or simply "dung," and they tack on a footnote that manuscripts differ. That single choice alters the emotional punch of the text: one reads as shockingly personal, the other as crude but more generalized.

Then there's the grain list in verse 9 — some translators use terms like "spelt," others use "emmer" or keep the more generic "coarse grain," depending on whether they choose a historical identification or a general reader-friendly term. Literalists like 'NASB' and 'ESV' stick with the Hebrew terms (translated as familiar grains), while 'NIV' and 'NLT' might smooth things for modern readers. I also noticed that some render the commands as theatrical directions — "portray the siege" or "make a model" — whereas others stick to "lie on your side" and leave the symbolism stark.

If you want to study these differences, I usually compare 'KJV' for the old phrasing, 'ESV' or 'NASB' for literal clarity, and 'NIV' or 'NLT' for a readable paraphrase — and then consult footnotes or the 'NET Bible' notes for manuscript variants. It keeps the passage interesting and reminds me that translation is part science, part storytelling.

Okay, this is one of those passages that makes me nerd out a little because translators really had to choose how literal to be and which manuscript traditions to follow. When I read 'Ezekiel' chapter 4 across versions I notice three big fault lines: textual base (Masoretic Text vs. some ancient Greek witnesses), translation philosophy (word-for-word vs. thought-for-thought), and cultural sensitivity (how bluntly to render bodily details). The more literal versions like 'NASB' and 'ESV' stick close to the Hebrew cadence and imagery: the 390 days and 40 days, the command to lie on your side, the list of cereals in verse 9 (wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, spelt), and that infamous line about baking bread using excrement as fuel. Those renderings feel harsh but faithfully reflect the Hebrew MS tradition most English translations use.

By contrast, dynamic or pastoral translations such as 'NIV' and 'NLT' sometimes soften phrasing or rearrange words for readability. They might say "symbolize" or "portray the siege" instead of the more archaic "lie upon thy right side" and may add brief explanatory footnotes — for instance noting that the 390 and 40 days are usually read as representing years of punishment for Israel and Judah. Another wrinkle: some ancient Greek witnesses and a few medieval readings diverge on certain numerical details or on the word for dung (some manuscripts read "cow dung"), and modern editions will note that in margins or footnotes.

For a careful reader I recommend comparing a very literal line-for-line version with a smoother modern one and checking the footnotes or a study Bible. If you like geeky detective work, the 'NET Bible' has extensive translator notes explaining the choices; the 'RSV'/'NRSV' often balance literalness with modern English. Ultimately, those differences change tone more than doctrine, but they do affect how vividly the scene lands on your imagination.