Which Bible translations are considered the best?

[Marrow Man]

Phil Johnson tells the story of a time in Italy, after WWII, when there was a paper shortage. They would use just about anything for paper. A man went to the fish market and when he arrived home, he discovered that his purchase had been wrapped in a page of the NT (I don't know what passage). He was converted reading that one page (he had never read the Bible before). He wound up starting a Protestant church in Italy. Praise be to God.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Oh , and to Stephen from NZ. Ha ha

nothing like putting an Aussie in his proper place

Seriously I have given a lot of thought to the area of Bible Translations so will share my comments:
1. The ESV is probably the most popular in Reformed circles and for good reason. it is a very good translation overall. This is my main translation.
2. For a translation a little more 'dynamic' I use the HCSB. I think it is much better than the NIV. Greenbaggins on this list also rates it highly. Generally I use the HCSB alongside the ESV.
3. I also make good use of the NASB and the NKJV - also fine translations.

 

[Edward]

For what it's worth, I was converted, in part, through the reading of the NIV translation.

Do not take that as an unqualified endorsement!

The original NIV isn't bad. It was popular in evangelical and reformed circles when you were young.

TNIV and later, however, should be burned or shredded lest they fall into the hands of those without discernment and lead a lamb astray.

 

[Edward]

The ESV is probably the most popular in Reformed circles and for good reason. it is a very good translation overall.

I'm not as big a fan of the ESV as many here; it is generally good but I do have some concerns about gender neutrality in some places. That being said, it's what our church uses so it's what I regularly use, with reference to the NKJV.

 

[DMcFadden]

As I have often observed on the PB, whatever you will USE is the best one for you.

Having used Greek since taking it in 1971 before many of you were born, my preference is for an essentially literal one.

My Critical Text Preferences in Order - ESV, HCSB, NAS95.
Majority Text Preferences (not in order) - KJV and NKJV.

I am using the ESV mainly now and miss the fact that the NKJV is not only extremely readable, but offers footnotes to show where it differs from the TR and the UBS traditions of texts.

God will use any English translation to achieve his purposes. He will also use Balaam's ass. Neither is an excuse for "settling" when a more faithful option is available.

 

[Marrow Man]

The original NIV isn't bad. It was popular in evangelical and reformed circles when you were young.

It would have come out when I was in high school, but I was reading it when I was 21. When I read Ephesians 2:8-9, it was out of the NIV.

 

[reaganmarsh]

I also favor the formal equivalence translations. But I share with several brethren above the conversion experience through the NIV. Most of the Scripture I memorized as a child and young teen was KJV and I still cherish that translation and refer to it freely in preaching (in fact, for our Wed evening prayer times, I prefer to use the KJV for our public reading of Scripture, as it is the translation most of our elderly saints know best).

I've toyed around with the idea of preaching from the Geneva before...but then I remembered that I'm serving a non-reformed SBC church, and would like to keep my job.

That being said, at present I preach from the ESV and, in the whole, I am satisfied with it.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Tim, Marrow Man. I see that you are a Pastor and I do not want to seem to want to argue with someone who is. I do however have concerns over what I fully believe are serious word omissions in that particular version, as well as some others. Here are just some of the others it omits and leaves me asking "what on earth went on with the writing of this version?" Omissions - From Mathew - 1 v 25 Firstborn 8 v 29 Jesus 9 v 13 Repentance 16 v 3 O ye hypocrites 19 v 17 God 20 v 16 For many are called but few chosen 27 v 35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots Or a few of the suggestions that the text did not exist in the oldest manuscripts (often a reference to the Vaticanus and Siniaticus) From Mark - 11 v 26 - 15 v 28 and 16 v 9 to 20. These are just a handful of examples from that version. I know I have asked what is considered a good one. I do know that there are some not good ones though and where they came from and sometimes who had an influence in the writing of them. Origen, Wescott, Hort. Three who held views extremely far from that of Reformed beliefs. Again I am not trying to disrespect you here or your views, that's the best way I can think of to put it, but seriously do question versions such as that one. I guess my hope is for a version like the KJV which is easier to read, nothing changed or questionable, nothing omitted nothing left to the imagination "hmm, I wonder if that should really be in the Bible, that text?" With all respect, and in the Lord, Brett.

 

[Wololo]

I think if one can afford it, then they would be wise to get multiple translations. I like having different versions for multiple reasons: accuracy, readability, et al. For instance, I love the NASB because it seems to be the most literal word-for-word translation while italicizing words that are implied in the text, but aren't in the originals. Also, I like how it capitalizes the OT text in the NT, so one knows immediately that it is a quote from the OT. I use the ESV as my main reading bible because it is nearly as literal as the NASB with a slightly better readability factor. The NIV isn't too bad of a version either except I use that sparingly compared to the other two. I have a HCSB, but only because it was an apologetics study bible and it has some good nuggets of information in there.

Basically, it boils down to what your using the bible for at the time. If you're going to be doing a bible study, then the NASB or ESV is a better choice, but if you want to just read the bible and be confident that the text your reading is accurate AND readable then an NIV or a HCSB are fantastic as well.

Just my two cents

 

[JP Wallace]

Brett

Just a note - 'serious word omissions' are only serious word omissions if they are in fact omissions - i.e not additions as judged against some other point of reference. Unless you have previously settled on a 'gold standard' translation or manuscript translation to compare to how can you term anything either an omission or additon never mind 'serious'? And, if you have so settled upon another gold standard text such as the KJV, or Majority text then you're going to have to be happy with either the KJV or NKJV and such. So, you have to ask yourself, against what are you measuring that makes you think these are serious omissions? Just because a word is missing in one place does not demerit the translation, so long as the doctrine is resident elsewhere in a version (See Marrowman above)

Furthermore, older manuscrpt evidence is not limited to Sinaitius and Vatincanus, that is a bit of a straw man, the oldest references are papyrii and a host of others as well as references in the Fathers etc.

 

[KMK]

Just because a word is missing in one place does not demerit the translation, so long as the doctrine is resident elsewhere in a version

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this sounds fishy. It is not only the presence of data and doctrines that is important, but their repetition as well. God reveals himself not only in the presence of data and doctrine, but also in the repetition of data and doctrine. If the resurrection is supposed to be present in all four gospels then it is a big deal if it is present only in three of them.

 

[JohnGill]

Just because a word is missing in one place does not demerit the translation, so long as the doctrine is resident elsewhere in a version

One word does in fact demerit a translation because the Bible must be taken as a whole. One contradiction refutes the entire text. For if scripture truly is God's word, and its teaching that it reflects God's character is true, then it must be without contradiction.

The RSV was rejected by conservative Christian scholars for replacing virgin with "young woman" in Is 7:14, even though the doctrine of her virginity at conception is taught in the NT.

The Wicked Bible

Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt commit adultery."

Even though the doctrine that adultery was not to be committed was found in other places, the publishers where called to the Star Chamber and fined 300 pounds and deprived of their printing license. The majority of these Bibles were burned. And all because one word was missing, even though the doctrine that adultery is sin was found elsewhere. Would we had such seriousness concerning God's word in our day as they did.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Paul. My comment on the Vaticanus and Siniaticus was used with the word "often" not always or only. It would be true that at times those manuscripts are the ones. Perhaps I should have used sometimes. But even if it were just sometimes it would still be not a good thing. I do believe that words have been omitted. In doing this I believe also that this detracts from the harmony of the scriptures, where one verse in a particular place complements or backs up the same elsewhere. As that harmony is reduced by omissions it cannot be a good thing. Sometimes in a service in the past I would hear being read one particular passage and the Minister would say turn to this one also, where it is repeated or backed up in harmony in another. If those words are not present then this cannot be done. The harmony has been taken away. Yes it may appear elsewhere but now it is lessened. For what good reason one may ask? Why tell us that this text may not be in the oldest or others? Why omit the name of our Glorious Saviour? Why change the words worship to just bowed down. I can bow to anyone and still not be worshipping them!
My searching is based upon what I believe as a Christian I should do.
It reminds me of a passage I read in the Reformation In England by J H Merle d'Aubigne where a young Minsiter Lambert was addressing an Archbishop on the scriptures. Though I am not saying it is speaking on this subject, although it certainly could be applied to it, I believe.
"When you desire to buy cloth, you will not be satisfied with seeing one merchants wares, but go from the first to the second, from the second to the third, to find who has the best cloth. Will you be more remiss about your souls health? When you go on a journey, not knowing perfectly the way, you will inquire of one man after another, so ought we likewise to seek about entering the kingdom of heaven."

 

[JP Wallace]

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this sounds fishy. It is not only the presence of data and doctrines that is important, but their repetition as well. God reveals himself not only in the presence of data and doctrine, but also in the repetition of data and doctrine. If the resurrection is supposed to be present in all four gospels then it is a big deal if it is present only in three of them.

Brother's you all missed the point (or I communicated it badly), that last sentence goes along with the previous ones, it is not a standalone statement. What I was trying to say was that a word being judged as missing in a textual variant, according to a prejuded standard, as written about in the rest of the post, does not necessarily demerit a translation, as it may not have been there in the first place. The rest of the sentence merely was meant to set forth the widely agreed truth that just because a given text say misses a word which points towards Christ being divine in one place, so long as other texts assert this doctrine then no doctrinal harm is ultimately done.

So for example Matthew 4:18

ESV Matthew 4:18 While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

NKJ Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

Jesus is missing from the critical text - but that does not mean the ESV is to be rejected, as it is clear that it is Jesus from the context, parallel accounts in the other Gospels are agreed etc. etc. The material sense, meaning and significance of the text is not affected detrimentally by that 'omission'. Though again it is only omission if you are weighing it against certain other manuscripts!

So Kevin I have no problem with your post either, but I do draw your attention to one phrase which is what I was homing is on in mine..." If the resurrection is supposed to be present in all four gospels then it is a big deal if it is present only in three of them."

If....x is supposed to be. If it is, of course it must be. But if evidence supports its exclusion then it ought not to be. I of course refer again to a certain word, not the resurrection per se. What I am arguing is that omissions and additions can only rationally be tested against the whole manuscript tradition - not some 'gold standard' whether that be Hort's Sinaiticus or the Textus Receptus mss. If the mss collections point to an omission, then a word's omission does not detract from our understanding of God's Word. We are all pursuing God's Word, and every word that is meant to be there is vital, but how do we know what is to be included or not - that is the issue.


Chris, re: your post,

That is not a textual issue but a translation issue on one hand (and a doctrinal presupposition driving it too, and in the second case, a printing issue, which is very different. I do not, and I hope no one else would argue that such changes and omissions are of no consequence.

 

[KMK]

We are all pursuing God's Word, and every word that is meant to be there is vital, but how do we know what is to be included or not - that is the issue.

Agreed.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello again Paul. I do understand what you are saying. My problem with many of the new versions is that they change what needs not to be changed. If they were just hard to understand words or words that once meant one thing but now mean another, then fair enough, but too often they are words and phrases that do not need to be omitted or changed whatsoever. For example with the word worship. I can use the Bible to show how Jesus was/is God. By showing where people who went to worship anything or anyone else were stopped from doing so. From men to angels. But when Jesus was worshipped they were not forbidden to do so. But in passages where worship is changed to merely bowing down, an act I would do in respect for say our Queen upon meeting her, how can I prove that that passage showed that Jesus is God, to be worshipped? The harmony is gone from those passages, as is the proof. They may appear elsewhere, but when I for example once had several proofs I now have just a few. Less. The more witnesses you have in anything the better off you are! The other thing is the use of the Vaticanus in many of them. Whether or not it was/is used a lot or just a bit is not the issue to me. I ask, myself, where is the Vaticanus from, this manuscript which was used, more or less, along with others I know and not just it entirely? The church of Rome. Where is it held? The church of Rome. Who did the reformers fight against, who killed so many of the good Godly people in that time? The church of Rome and those who followed it. Would they have accepted the use of it? No. Then neither will I. If we are to judge a tree by its roots, and know that a bad tree cannot give out good fruit. The church of Rome and all that it is and has is bad. The Vaticanus is a bad fruit of that bad tree and yet has been accepted into the use for the translating of the Bible. That tells me enough to reject them. I didn't start off this post thinking like this or start it to finish with this, as I looked into things and found things out though I came to this. All I came across pointed out clearly that the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus were used for many of the modern translations. Given the Roman catholic churches history even up until this very day, I have seen pictures of a pope kissing the Koran in our modern days, pictures of the St Bartholomew day massacre painting/mural and the medallions struck to celebrate it with the picture still hanging/displayed in the Vatican. The worldwide abuse of children and more that leaves me to ask myself. Why would I accept a version that had the input/use of its own Vaticanus? I cannot and will not.
I am sorry if during this post and the others I have offended anyone or made anyone think that I was out to. I haven't, it was a search on my own behalf with my thoughts and conclusion being expressed as it is now.
In the Lord, Brett.

 

[One Little Nail]

Hello everyone. I was wondering which Bible translation is considered the best.

The main thing is to avoid translations that use Australian scholars. Those translations are quite dodgy

Nathaniel has been quoted as saying does anything good come from N.Z.
all jokes aside i would agree with you considering Kel Richards Aussie Bible.

 

[jandrusk]

The KJV I think is the best as it has been proven to stand the test the time (400+ years) and is based on the Textus Receptus and was not translated by secular humanists. The "Critical Text" versions were based on manuscripts that came out of Alexandria, Egypt, which was the home to numerous Christian heresies.

 

[irresistible_grace]

I have loved the ESV since I read my first copy cover to cover in 2008. That is the year I was introduced to the faith of the Reformers. For the last 3 years I have fought against using the AV (aka KJV) exclusively but the more I use it in corporate, family & private worship ... the more I love the Authorized Version.

It doesn't matter which one is the "best" if you don't read it!
Pick one translation, stick with it & love reading God's Word.
The only translation that will be of any eternal benefit is the one you hide in your heart!
As for my family we will continue using the Authorized Version (for reasons found in Joshua's post above).

 

[One Little Nail]

Oh , and to Stephen from NZ. Ha ha

nothing like putting an Aussie in his proper place

Seriously I have given a lot of thought to the area of Bible Translations so will share my comments:
1. The ESV is probably the most popular in Reformed circles and for good reason. it is a very good translation overall. This is my main translation.
2. For a translation a little more 'dynamic' I use the HCSB. I think it is much better than the NIV. Greenbaggins on this list also rates it highly. Generally I use the HCSB alongside the ESV.
3. I also make good use of the NASB and the NKJV - also fine translations.

watch it Kiwi, Congratulations are at hand, Squandering an unassailable 8-1 lead in the
Americas Cup Priceless, how my heart bleeds


1. the ESV is apparently Im told a literal conservative translation though its drawback is
the use of the Critical Textual Apparatus.
2.there is a need to stick to a more literal translation as it is God's Words we wont to hear
not a translators interpretation which would rule out any dynamic equivalence "translations"
3. The KJ Bible is still in my opinion the best translation with its great readability, Literalness'
& use of TR Textual Base, if you need something more literal you can use JP Greens Literal
Version alongside of this,as well as his Modern King James Version which is quite good if you
need to read a modern TR based version I rate it higher than the NKJV which betrays the
Hebrew Masoretic text as well as using RSV readings in the NT.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OTL9kLt8Bik