"The best
When it comes to bible translations, there are three basic types.
Literal (word for word)- Literal translation is just that, and exact as possible translation word for word from the original to the new language. On a technical level this gives you the most accurate translation, however, problems arise in this style of translation because euphemisms, slang, and cultural references can get lost in translation. A modern English reader would understand phrases like "He's really cool" or "My dog kicked the bucket", but the meaning would be lost in another language and culture. Some word are also difficult to make a direct translation of due to language technicalities. There are four different words for love in Greek, each with a different nuance, but only one in English, for example.
Dynamic Equivalence ( thought for thought)- This type focus on what the original text was trying to say in its cultural context rather than a literal word for word approach. This answers the linguistic issues of the literal method, however it is not as accurate on a technical level and some passages can be skewed by the personal interpretation of the translator.
Paraphrase- Not really a translation, the author of a paraphrase re-interprets the text in an easier to understand format. can bring out nuances in the text not seen before, but is very subjective and open to interpretation. Not recommended for Preaching or in-depth study, but good for personal reading or searching for a different interpretation of a passage.
There are dozens of different bible translations on the market, as well as tons of different study, devotional and reference bibles depending on your needs. Here are the major translations in English and my personal opinions on them
The King James Version -Literal
The Grandaddy of them all, and still one of the most popular. This translation itself is considered to be a classic of English language. Originally translated in 1611, the language has a scope and gravity that I really like, as well as an air of authority that other translations do not accomplish, for many conservative and more old fashion believers,this is the only true bible, if only because it is the one they were raised with. Though I love the poetry of the language, The archaic word usage and gramatic structure can make it difficult to understand when reading or to
The New King James Version -Literal
My favorite for personal use, it is a new translation of the text that keeps a lot of the flavor of the KJV while updating the language and
The New International Version -Dynamic Equivalence
The most popular translation available today The NIV strives to translate scripture in the thought for thought style, in order to make the concepts and ideas presented avalibe to all readers. I find that in the attempt to make the bible as accessible as possible, the NIV has lost some of the great nuance and flavor of the original language and meaning of the text that other translations have been able to capture.I use it when it is the only thing available or if my audience clearly prefers it, but am not fond of it personally.
Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible and English Standard Version -Literal
These are scholarly translations designed to be as accurate to the original manuscripts and modern translation techniques as possible. they are very similar, which is why I have grouped them together, with the ASV being the oldest, translated in 1901, and the NASB and ESV being the most recent and up to date. Great for in depth language study, but the technical scholarly aspect of the translation can make it somewhat dry and stilted to read.
The Living Bible- Paraphrase
published in 1971 by a pastor named Kenneth Taylor, it was written to make the Bible more accessible to the modern Christan, as well as an earlier version called The Living Letters, which was New Testament only.
both were very popular in the 60's and 70's and were used by Billy Graham in his ministry. Not used as much today, as it has been replaced by the NLT.
The New Living Translation- Literal and Dynamic Equivalence
Headed up by the author of the LB, the NLT is meant to be a full accurate translation of the bible with the ease of reading and stylistic approach of the LB.Translated literally for most parts, they use dynamic equivalence on passages that can be more difficult to understand. Over all a good translation.
The Holman Christian Standard Bible- Literal and Dynamic Equivalence on difficult to translate passages.
A new translation By the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, this one tries to balance scholarly accuracy and readability, and in my opinion does very well. I prefer it to both the NIV or the NLT, and is personaly my second favorite choice, as well as the one my wife and I are using in our daily bible study, and therefore the one I use most often on this blog.
The Message-Dynamic Equivalence and Paraphrase
Created/ Translated by pastor Eugene Peterson, this version is an attempt to bring forth as much of the original nuance and meaning of original language as possible into modern day speech. This makes it very engaging and easy to read. Becuase of this focus it can be too contemporary at times, using modern slang and idoms that match the thought , but are totally foriegn to the language at times, sometimes to the point of making passages alomst unrecognisable to those in other translations. Good for personal study and to get a fresh perpsective on the text, but should be read along with a more literal translation.
The Amplified Bible- Literal with paraphrase text notes
The AB is an updated version of the ASV with notes on translation and historical data in paretheses in the text ninstead of as a footnote in most study bibles. The added information is very useful, but can be confusing to read due to how it is placed in the text. I prefer a footnoted study bible myself.
The Good News Bible, Today's English Version, Contemporary English Version- Dynamic Equivalence
The purpose of these translation is for ease of readability, so a lot of the language and concepts have been simplified. Good for those who are not adept readers or have difficulty grasping the concepts of other translations, and for young readers.
Other things that can add to the Confusion-
The New World Translation
This is the translation used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Over all it is just poorly and unfaithfully translated. Based on a in depth study of it I can see that some of the JW's faulty beilefs come simply from poor translation, or from not taking cultural and language usage differences in context. Not only is it a very sloppy translation, but it is aslo biased towards pre-concieved JW views. Certain passages that conflict with JW beliefs are translated so they do not conlfict, and they claim this is the accurate translation and others simply translate them wrong, but in other less controverial places they translate the same as every one else, ignoring the "proper" translation rules they set up in the conflicting passages. I would stay away from this one with a ten foot pole.
The Apocrypha ( or Duterocanon)
This is a set of books written between the Old and New Testament that Catholics consider scripture and Protestants and Evangelicals do not. When St. Jerome was translating the Bible from Greek to Latin he found these books hidden inside the copies of other texts. ( Apocrypha means hidden in Greek).He transalted them along with the bible but added a note that he thought they were good to use as historical documents and had a few interesting addition to other books, such as Daniel and Esther, did not consider them to be scripture. The Catholic church agreed with him until the 16th century, when they needed a scriptural defense for the practice of selling indulgences (selling pardons for sins you have not yet commited), against charges from those in the protestant reformation that this major means of church fundraising was heretical. The only thing they could find was a verse in Macabees, so the included the Apocrapha as scripture during the Council of Trent.
The Book of Mormon-
This is the "second" bible that the Mormon church believes is scripture. It recounts the story of a lost tribe of Isreal coming to South America to live and Jesus coming to preach to them after his Ascension. I have read it and done a bit of study on it as well, and do not consider it scripture in any form ofr fashion, exept for a large section that directly quotes the book of Isaiah in the KJV, including chapter headings and verse numbers. This is one of the issues I have with the book. whenever someone in it quotes the Old Testament, they quote the KJV, exactly. That would not happen if this is a translation from a forieng language to english, as they claim. If you notice in the New testament, whenever Jesus or Paul quotes the Old Testament, the wording is not the same as in the original passage in that same translation. That is because in the New Teatament the quote has been twice translated, first from Hebrew to Greek by the writer, then Greek to Engilsh by the translator, where as the actaul Old Testament source has been translated straight from Hebrew to English. If the Book of Mormon was translated from it's original language to English, as they claim, then it would not match the KJV, unless it had been purposely altered to do so. These quotes are not written as if they were translated from another Langage, but as if they were copied from the KJV. Most of the controversial aspects of Mormonism do not even come from The book of Mormon, but from another book by their founder Joseph Smith called the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants.. This like the JW translation is something I would stay far away from.
