Links to elsewhere on
this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html For the home page, click here: /index.html
Which Bible
Translation Is Best?
Eric Snow,
sermonette, 4/30/2010, Ann Arbor, MI, UCG
What is the
best translation of the Bible? What
specific qualities or characteristics should Christians consider when buying a
new translation of the Bible? Is the
time-honored King James Version the best overall translation? Which modern Bible translations are good,
and which ones are bad?
There are
many different factors to consider when buying a new translation of the Bible.
S.P.S. In general, Christians should use multiple
translations, especially those that are more literal, with modern language,
and/or use the Byzantine text for the New Testament.
The answer
depends on the purpose for which you’re buying the Bible: Different tools have different
purposes. Using the just right tool can
make the repair job much easier, as any serious auto mechanic can tell
you. Don’t use a monkey wrench or
ratchet as a hammer. Don’t use a nail
when a screw is better. The same goes
for Bible translations: Be aware of the
limitations of the tool you’re using.
Don’t end up pounding in a nail using ˝” drive ratchet.
Now, let’s
zero in on some key points when choosing to buy and read a new Bible
translation.
1. What philosophy of translation did the
translators use?
Word-for-word
(formal equivalence)? RSV, KJV, NKJV,
ESV Or meaning-for-meaning (dynamic
equivalence)? CEV, TEV/GNB? Did they compromise between the two? NIV
Is the
“translation” really a paraphrase, such as the Living Bible and the
Message? “Paraphrase and perish.” Many years ago, a reprint article by our
parent organization slammed the LB hard, “It is full of imaginative details not
supported by the biblical text. It
cannot be relied upon.”
Should
figures of speech be literally translated?:
“Kidney” instead of “heart” as center or source of emotions and
feelings.
Ps.
73:21
KJV: “Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked
in my reins.”
[Open, then
read NKJV’s translation]
Two
problems here: Obscure English word
derived from Latin used in place of modern word for “kidneys,” then it’s also
overly literal translation of Hebrew.
Spanish
example: “Eye out of face” (“me costó
un ojo de la cara”) in place of “cost an arm and leg.” If follow original language’s sentence
structure too closely, can result in a wooden, hard-to-read translation. Suppose I translated this Spanish sentence
as “It me cost an eye out of the face.” Ironic result: The real
meaning can be obscured or covered up when one gets too literal.
Use
readable versions for reading Bible, especially the historical parts and the
Gospels, such as the CEV or NIV. But
use literal translations for studying, especially Paul’s letters, such as the
NKJV, KJV, and NASB. The translator’s
doctrinal or liberal bias becomes a bigger problem with less literal
translations. Also, a Bible can be more
readable, yet slangy and undignified (Message) or more elegant and literary
(NIV). Own experience, RSV vs. NIV read
aloud.
2. If old fashioned English is hard for you to
read, then the KJV should be mainly used for reference and fine doctrinal
points. Thou’s, thee’s, thine’s, thy’s,
-ths, etc., set up an artificial barrier to understanding. The word of God is difficult enough as it is
to understand, so why make it worse by using early 17th century
English? English words change meanings
over centuries. “prevent” and “fetch a
compass.”
Luke 18:16
KJV: “Suffer little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not.”
[Open NKJV,
read aloud] Obviously, Jesus didn’t
want these children to endure pain when they came to Him!
Own
experience when reading bilingual Spanish/English Bible, and I used the Spanish
to clarify the English once or twice! (KJV
and Reina Valera)
Don’t give
KJV to children or grandchildren if one expects them to read it on their
own. 12th grade reading
level vs. New Century Version’s 3rd, NKJV’s 7th.
3. Use a Bible that has the Received/Byzantine
Text for the New Testament, not the Critical/Westcott-Hort text.
KJV/NKJV
are nearly the only Bibles that use the Received text. Almost all others use some variation of the
Critical text.
The two
oldest main manuscripts of the New Testament are of the Critical text type and
are from the fourth century. But early
Catholic writers quoted from the Byzantine/Received text type centuries
earlier. Also 80%-90% of all Bibles
have this text type, and they are much more consistent with fewer textual
variations.
Mark 1:1-3
If “Isaiah”
appears in your translation, that’s an error from the Critical text type, since
“the prophets” is more accurate, and is from the Received Text. The first quote is from Malachi, not Isaiah!
Conclusion: For me, overall best is NKJV: It’s literal, it avoids archaic language,
and it uses the Received Text. But no
one translation is perfect. Buy and use
different Bible translations for different purposes. Be aware of their limitations.
Don’t use the wrong one for the wrong situation. Don’t end up using a hammer to pound in a
screw!
Links to elsewhere on
this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html For the home page, click here: /index.html
Does Islam cause terrorism? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Moral
Equivalency Applied Islamic History 0409.htm
Is the Bible God’s Word? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Is
the Bible the Word of God.htm
Why does God Allow Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why
Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
Is Christian teaching from ancient
paganism? /Bookhtml/Paganism
influence issue article Journal 013003.htm
Which is right?: Judaism or Christianity? /Apologeticshtml/Is
Christianity a Fraud vs Conder Round 1.htm
/Apologeticshtml/Is
Christianity a Fraud vs Conder Round 2.htm
Should God’s existence be proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should
the Bible and God Be Proven Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does the Bible teach
blind faith? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel
of John Theory of Knowledge.htm