I have done lots of reading about the different English versions of the Bible. There is much to be said, but I wish to keep this brief and fair. There are two categories of Bibles: 1) Literal and 2) Dynamic.
Literal = Word-for-word translation. Although accurate it may not flow well. Good for determining doctrine. When translating any language, meaningful flow is a problem. Examples = King James, New King James (which changes only words from Old English to equal in meaning words of modern English), American Standard, New American Standard, Revised Standard.
Dynamic = Thought-for-thought (paraphrased). In other words, a sentence or paragraph is read, the main gist is determined, and then re-written in words that are easily understood by the targeted culture. It flows well and is easier to understand but lacks accuracy at times, therefore it is not good for determining doctrine. Examples = New International Version, New English, Phillips, Living Bible, Good News for Modern Man.
What should we use? There are many factors which go into the choice of which Bible you buy, including what your church uses, layout, and font size. Whatever translation your church uses is another factor, since it is often a good idea to get a copy of whatever translation they use in order to make group study easier. If you want a study Bible rather than an easy reading one, make sure it has a good concordance. This is a list of key words and their locations throughout Scripture so you can find verses quickly. Cross-references are a must as well. These are small-cased letters next to key words or phrases telling you where to find a similar passage or word in the Bible. Bible dictionaries also come in handy for study because they list people, places, and things, and tell you relevant information about them from the Bible and history.
Because of the manner in which the King James Version was translated and put together, many believe it is the most accurate. Some disagree. For information on the impressive formation of the KJV, go to
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/dr_fuller-versions.htm
I started with the Living Bible as a new believer, but as time went on, I needed something closer to the Hebrew and Greek. Today, I use a couple of literal types and once in a while use the Living Bible. Sometimes it has helped but other times I did not agree with author Ken Taylor’s choice of words. I think it is important that we use a version that helps us understand and motivates us to read. Anytime there is a question about the meaning of a verse or a single word, I always go with the KJV.
The Roman Catholic Church used to have only one official Bible – the Douay-Rheims Translation. Today, however, there are a variety of other versions sanctioned by that church. The major difference is the “apocryphal books” which are contained between the Old and New Testaments. They were added by the Catholic Church in the mid 1500s, but were rejected by the Protestant Reformation movement because they believed those books were not inspired by God. If you would like to see those reasons, go to
http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible
There is one Bible that I cannot recommend reading: The New World Translation (I’ve only seen it in green color). This is the Jehovah’s Witness Bible. Their “Greek scholars” were bogus and they changed key words to fit their pet doctrines. For example, John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Theirs is changed to, “…and the Word was a god” because they deny that Christ is God in the flesh. They believe He was Michael the archangel in the flesh and therefore is a created angel lower than God. After talking with them, they have no good explanation concerning the first chapter in Hebrews that reveals their error.
Another version I have a major problem with is the Scofield Bible because it was translated by a staunch dispensationalist Cyrus Scofield and he allows his biased view of End-time prophecies cloud his decisions. For example, the phrase “the great tribulation” never appears in the King James Version. What does appear are the phrases “great tribulation” in Matthew 24:21, “immediately after that tribulation in those days in Matthew 24:29 (most likely referring to the destruction in 70 AD), and “in those days after that tribulation” in Mark 13:24 (again 70 AD). One obvious unfair move by Scofield is found in Revelation 7:14 where the KJV states, “they that came out of great tribulation” which leads me to interpret as referring to souls over the centuries who had it especially tough, not just one little group that will exist just prior to the Second Coming. True to his dispensational bias, Scofield inserted the word “the” before “great tribulation” which signifies that this versed is singling out that one group of people that somehow is going to have it worse than any other group of believers, which makes no sense when we consider what horrors many Christians from different time periods have experienced throughout the Church Age. The bottom line point here is that the concept of one, special great tribulation that has a great special reward for those who go through it is a myth. The Bible never teaches this. When the Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1909, it unfortunately quickly became the most influential statement of dispensational premillennialism. Scofield’s notes teach futurism and dispensationalism, a theology that was systematized in the early nineteenth century by the Anglo-Irish clergyman John Nelson Darby, whose attitude toward thinking he was right bothers me. I say “unfortunately, because this teaching has snuffed out other valid views of End-Time interpretation. All should be taught allowing individuals to believe as they wish (without leading to division within the Church).
A more recent version, The New Living Translation (NLT), has some Christians objecting because they perceive a liberal, politically correct approach to interpreting. Other believers have told me that they like the NLT. The following list will give you an idea of what this involves:
Gender inclusive language (God is not a “He” for just one example).
Downplaying the existence of Hell and God’s judgment.
Downplaying the deity of Jesus.
Downplaying the power of the Holy Spirit.
Denying the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus.
Downplaying the sin of homosexuality.
Downplaying the differences between men and women.
Pro-abortion slant (“with child” is changed to “pregnant” for example).
I’ve been taught that there was a lot of prayer and fasting to determine correct translation by several devoted scholars when questions arose when forming the KJV that came out in 1611. After each time they prayed, they would agree in a certain decision. I have no idea how The NLT was formed. Was there much prayer/fasting to seek God’s Truth? How about the quality of Greek and Hebrew scholarship? What degree of reverence did the people have toward the Bible in general? If man’s reasoning alone dictated changes in the Bible, I tend not to trust that wisdom. One should not simply “mess” with the Word of God.
In summary: Ideally, all people should know Hebrew and Greek fluently and read the Bible in those languages. Realistically, this isn’t going to happen and God knows it. Therefore, for lay people most versions work just fine. The Holy Spirit is fully capable of revealing what you need to know. I recommend, however, the use of at least one literal type and at least one dynamic type. I often use “The New Layman’s Parallel Bible” which offers four versions in one book with the KJV used as the base. Each page has each version side by side for easy reference. For those who want more or those who prepare teachings, they should use a good Bible commentary or two (but try to find one that shares various viewpoints rather than from one viewpoint). There are dispensationalists (premillenialists), amillennialists, pre-tribulation rapture folks, post-tribulation rapture folks, old-earth creationists (progressive creationists), and young-earth creationists, Calvinists, and others. The point is, these viewpoints (do I dare say biases?) can influence commentary. They certainly sway translators, but that is another AT ISSUE.
I hope this essay was clear and helps people decide on what version(s) to use. It’s always good to seek the Lord on matters such as this. Remember, this was not an in-depth report on this subject, but rather a brief overview of key points.
Feedback So Far:
Raj – I have to disagree on your comments about the NLT version. The first bible I ever read was an NLT and have since bought a NLT study bible. I never felt the NLT downplay anything or even deny as you have listed. I would like you to prove it. Now I do find “the message” bible version to be like your description of the NLT. I do agree with the use of multiple bibles.
Dave – After doing some more research, I may agree somewhat with your disagreement. I now do not think the NLT does all those things that I accused it of doing. I also see your point about “The Message.” However, versions like NLT and others may be the beginning of a slippery slope to PC-ness. Here’s a portion of what I did find online:
Gender-Neutralism and Egalitarianism.
In line with the recent trend in Bible and book publishing, the NLT carefully avoids the use of “male-oriented” language. In Bible translations this involves a suppression of the male-oriented language in the original text by means of various circumlocutions and paraphrases. We may suppose that in the NLT this was done in a late editorial stage of the version’s production, because it is evident from the press release quoted above that it was done without the cooperation or approval of some of the scholars who worked on the version. Bergen, at least, did not agree with the use of gender-neutral language:
Bergen noted that in the Hebrew society, men were dominant, thus biblical writers employed male language. In Bergen’s translation of the book of Exodus, he retained the original language. “I’m not going to recreate ancient Israel into a sexless society,” he said.
Nevertheless, the finished product was made to be thoroughly genderless by Tyndale House editors. They seem not to have paid any attention to the Hebrew and Greek texts in this editing, because early printings of the New Living Translation gave unisex renderings for the Greek word ανηρ (which corresponds to the English word “male”), as in Acts 1:21, “So now we must choose someone else to take Judas’ place.” In later printings this particular blunder was corrected to read, “So now we must choose another man to take Judas’ place.”
The preface of the NLT is less than frank about the reasons for this gender-neutral language. It claims that this style is necessary “to make the translation clear to a modern audience that tends to read male-oriented language as applying only to males” and that it is “driven by the concern to reflect accurately the intended meaning of the original texts.” As one example of the style it cites Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go,” which in the NLT reads, “Teach your children to choose the right path.” But it is hard to see how the literal rendering here (or anywhere) could possibly be misunderstood as applying exclusively to males. Who would ever interpret “train up a child in the way he should go” as if the instruction were only for boys? The fact is, most people have no trouble at all with generic masculine pronouns. The gender-neutral language policy is not driven by any legitimate requirement of “dynamically equivalent” accuracy or by any desire to help people understand the text. It is driven by the usual desire of commercial publishers to avoid offending feminist sensibilities.
In connection with this we notice that in the “Tyndale Bible Verse Finder,” included in most editions of the NLT, the editors have carefully avoided the subject of womanly submission, despite the fact that this is a “hot topic” and highly interesting to most of the people who will be using such a topical index. We would expect to find under a suitable heading references to the pertinent verses, such as 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Peter 3:1-6. But under the headings “Family,” “Marriage,” and “Women” there is no mention of this topic at all, and under the heading “Submission” we read, “Marriage calls for mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21-33).”
While the above paragraph makes clear that the NLT’s actual verses about women submitting are maintained, the add-on called the “Tyndale Verse Finder” did NOT contain those important verses that do indicate that a husband has authority over his wife and that women should not have authority over men in the church. Again, the spirit behind some of these modern translations may be off and the plan is to pervert the Word slowly. My point is, let’s all keep up our awareness to this possibility.
As I stated above, these are the areas we need to be alert about to make sure these are not “tweaked” by modern folks who think they know better:
Gender inclusive language (God is not a “He” for just one example).
Downplaying the existence of Hell and God’s judgment.
Downplaying the deity of Jesus.
Downplaying the power of the Holy Spirit.
Denying the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus.
Downplaying the sin of homosexuality.
Downplaying the differences between men and women.
Pro-abortion view (“with child” is changed to “pregnant” for example).
Blessings in Him,
Dave