Crazy About Church | Controversial Yet Conservative

3 Things Your Choice In Bible Translation Says About You And Your Church

Photo credit: .loveisarevolution (Creative Commons)

There are dozens and dozens of Bible translations out in circulation today. But did you know it hasn’t always been that way?

I have a friend who, shortly after he got saved, was told by his new pastor that the Bible he brought to church (his dad’s Bible) was not truly God’s Word and that he should go home and burn it. The problem the pastor had with it: It wasn’t the version the pastor preferred (my friend’s dad’s Bible was a New American Standard Version). Because my friend didn’t know better at the time, he went home and burned it. Today, he still grieves over that decision!

I personally do some guest speaking and pulpit supply for various churches around California. I always ask the question about what translation the pastor normally uses and then I use that translation when preaching, unless I have a problem with it. In fact, one pastor in particular emailed me a few months back just so he could tell me why I would never be allowed to preach at his church—ever! The reason he gave me? Because I am open to using a few translations other than the good ‘ole King James Version (KJV).

Did you know it’s only been a few hundred years since we’ve had the Bible in different languages that any common sinner could read? And thousands of people were burned at the stake in order to make that happen for us today! We should be grateful for their sacrifice.

Today there are entire ministries that exist purely to get the Holy Scriptures translated into the thousands of languages around the world. How awesome is that?

In the English speaking world today we have hundreds of Bible translations to choose from. Some of them are quite good while others…um…not so much. And there are a few that are just downright blasphemous!

It seems that every few years the new “latest and greatest” translation comes out and Christians flock towards that translation for a time. But I suppose the question for the day always remains: Which translation of the Bible is the “best” translation for you to use?

Now that’s an issue/question that causes countless church factions, divisions, church splits, and everything else in between. We English speakers sometimes feel we’ve got the corner on God’s written Word, as if the Spanish or French or Korean version is somehow unacceptable and those foreign Christians need to learn English or…well…that’s just too bad.

Why is that?

Let me first say that choosing the “right” translation of the Bible is very important, both for individual Bible study and for corporate worship. But there’s also a real sense in which we take this issue way to far (KJV-worshipers, for example), and I don’t believe God is pleased with that at all.

And yet, there are certainly more than a few translations I would caution people about. Do you know what I mean?

Essentially, all Bible translations (even yours) are lumped into three common categories:

Word-For-Word
Thought-For-Thought
Para-Phrase

1. Word-For-Word. This essentially means that the translators have tried to give us a very “literal” translation of the text. These translations are good for serious Bible study. Yet occasionally they are a bit challenging with regards to readability because the Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic (the original languages of the Bible) sometimes do not translate into English very easily. Moreover, these translations are often developed for a higher reading level (an 8th grade level instead of, for example, a 3rd grade level) and so some readers may find these to be a bit challenging. A few translations that fit into this Word-For-Word category are: New American Standard Version (NASB); Amplified Bible (AMP); King James Version (KJV); New King James Version (NKJV); and the English Standard Version (ESV).

2. Thought-For-Thought. This essentially means the translation has been created to be not necessarily “literal,” but more “readable.” If you are interested in serious Bible study, these types of translations would not be a great fit for you. Furthermore, because these Thought-For-Thought translations are NOT a literal translation of the biblical text, that means you are getting more of the translators own individual “interpretations” of the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself. This could be quite problematic, especially if the translator has their own personal bent, agenda, or uncommon interpretation on a particular verse or topic. Some translations that fit into this Thought-For-Thought cateogry are: New International Version (NIV); Revised Standard Version (RSV); New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB); and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).

3. Para-Phrase. This essentially means what it sounds like. The translators took a verse, interpreted it however they felt it should be intrepreted, and then reworded it in a way that they believed people would enjoy (and/or benefit from) reading. This is not a style of translation that is used in many corporate worship settings today, but there are, sadly, exceptions to this rule. There is much debate among Christians about whether or not these translations can even be considered “God’s Word” or not. Some translations that fit into this Para-Phrase category are: New Living Translation (NLT); Living Bible (LB); The Message (TM); Contemporary English Version (CEV); and the Good News Translation (GNT).

For example, here are some various versions of John 3:16. See the differences? In some instances they may appear to be subtle, and in other cases they aren’t subtle at all. Some are just unacceptable altogether!

New American Standard Bible (NASB): “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
King James Version (KJV): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
The Message (TM): ”This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.”
New King James Version (NKJV): “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
New International Version (NIV): “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
New International Readers Version (NIRV): “God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.”
New International Version (1984 Translation): “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Amplified Bible (AB): “For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.”
Contemporary English Version (CEV): “God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.”
English Standard Version (ESV): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Good News Translation (GNT): “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.”
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB): “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”

QUESTIONS FOR COMMENTING BELOW: What version of the Bible do you personally use, and why do you use that one? What version of the Bible does your pastor use when He preaches, and do you know why? Do you believe there are any versions of the Bible that genuine Christians should or should not use? Why or why not?

Photo credit: .loveisarevolution (Creative Commons)

Digg Digg

Dean

Hmm…interesting subject…perhaps the question that should be asked is “is there a standard that can be used to evaluate what Bible version is the “best” to use?” rather than jumping into the debate of whether or not there is a “right” version. Having a standard (if one exists) would take the attention away from “I think” to “Jesus thinks” or something along this line. Having a standard (again if one exists) allows people to have, and apply, discernment so that they can have discretion when considering which version to use. Having a standard would help to take the emotional aspect out of the issue, but I suppose that we would then argue about the standard unless its fairly clear or unambiguous. So what, if any, standards could one use to decide for themselves which Bible version is the “best” one to use? In the absence of a standard then there is no right or wrong version to use…does this make sense?

http://www.CharlesSpecht.com/ Charles Specht

Hi Dean. I see what you’re trying to say, and I think there is, indeed, somewhat of a standard in place.

Essentially, we should try to be as literal and exact and as word-for-word as we can when translating God’s Word. Anything other than that, really, is tinkering with God’s words and potentially making them say something there are not supposed to.

Renee A

NRSV .. gender inclusiveness

http://www.CharlesSpecht.com/ Charles Specht

true

Pingback: The Query Letter That Will Knock The Socks Off An Agent’s Feet
Lee

My first Bible was good old KJV, or as I call it, Good News for 17th Century Man. As a new believer I found it difficult to read because, well face it, the English language of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries is very different from that used in 1611. I eventually acquired a Scofield which dragged the KJV into the 20th Century at least, and an NASB. I also use the NKJV since that is what is on my computers. I prefer the word-for-word translations. I have a couple of paraphrases for reference, but they are not my regular day-to-day texts.
Sue

Thank you for posting the list of Bibles on your site. Currently at Knox United Church uses the Good News Bible at our United Church in Muskoka.

http://www.CrazyAboutChurch.com Charles Specht

Sue, how long has your church used that translations and do you know why they chose that one over any of the others?

Erwinvanlaar

I forgot something really important – you will find that the version is not the most important aspect when we consider our ability to listen and discern. Sometimes a Bible help – such as the Life Application Bible is an important aspect to consider. For example, my wife has read every translation mentioned above and just didn’t get it – then I found a Living Bible in the Life Application format and lights came on. Now she can read any version and gets it – still important to understand listen that we have to learn to listen

http://www.CrazyAboutChurch.com Charles Specht

Great point. Thanks for that!

Erwinvanlaar

Very thorough analysis of the number of versions – thanks. Bible versions reflect the culture of the times they were written in, so it’s not surprising that the oldest versions are the most complex to understand. At listen the most important thing is to listen carefull to discern the true meaning of the words.

http://www.CrazyAboutChurch.com Charles Specht

True!

http://www.trainingbusinesspros.com Business Training

butfirst of all thank you very much for the blog post it#s very insightful and very informative. And also somewhat thought-provoking. A someone who is connected with the United church one of the things that struck me was there is a version of the Bible that is currently missing from your list that I would like to add. The version that I am speaking about is `the inclusive Bible”. one of the ways that it differs from the list that you have above is that the language used for God is non-gender specific. why is that relevant? Because, many people who have difficulty with the male.figure or gender figure sometimes have difficulty relating to God in general so this version was created to allow those people that have that specific point of view relate to God better than a could of in a standard version. In the united church of Canada there are people who would agree and people who would disagree, I’m just the guy pointing it out. Thank you. Have a great day.

http://www.CrazyAboutChurch.com Charles Specht

Thank you for your comment.

Gender-neutral versions have arisen as of late, primarily due to women who find it offensive that God would be referred to in the male gender (aka: the feminist movement). Although I can understand that women would like to be able to relate to God as much as possible, the fact remains that God, Himself, chose to be referred to in the male gender, as a “Him,” and also as a Father. God could have chosen to be referred to in the female gender, but He did not. Moreover, God could have created in entirely new and distinct term or label when referring to Him, but He did not. Therefore, I personally believe that gender-neutral translations are a poor representation of biblical truth, misrepresent God, change the meaning and intent of Scripture, and therefore should not be used by genuine Christians.

People who are proponents of such a translation do not understand, for example, that when Scripture refers to believers as “sons of God,” it has to do with us receiving an inheritance in eternity future, as women in biblical times could not receive an inheritance from their Father. Men owned property in those times and women could not. Fathers led the household and women did not. Therefore, God refers to Himself in such a way for us to understand that the inheritance comes from Him alone and that He is in ultimate charge/authority of all things.This is my personal belief. I realize that some people may not agree with me on this, and that is okay. However, I am convinced that my stance on this is the one that honors God as He has seen fit to reveal Himself to us.But again, thanks for your comment! I do appreciate and value it very much!

Brannonws

How do you like the NASB compared to the ESV? I am pretty much settled to use one of the two, but am unsure as to which one is better/why. I have been using the NASB for years and have had a couple people recommend the ESV to me recently. What do you think?

http://www.CrazyAboutChurch.com Charles Specht

Personally, I prefer the NASB. I’d rather read a version that is as literal as can be. But that’s not to say that the ESV isn’t a good one. I have a few ESV translations on my shelf at home, for instance. I like the ESV, but I haven’t been able to personally “accept” it like I have the NASB or even the NKJV. And the reason that some people have recommended the ESV lately is because the ESV study Bible recently came out and some of the more “popular” pastors out there are using it. But there are a lot of “popular” pastors using the NASB and the NKJV as well (if for some reason that mattered).

Ultimaltey, I wouldn’t have a problem with, for example, my own children using the NASB or the ESV for their personal devotions.

Great questions, and thanks for asking them! Hope my answer(s) was sufficient for you.

http://www.CrazyAboutChurch.com Charles Specht

What version of the Bible do you personally use, and why do you use that one? What version of the Bible does your pastor use when He preaches, and do you know why? Do you believe there are any versions of the Bible that genuine Christians should or should not use? Why or why not?

tom bridges

I’ve never found the NASB to be to difficult. The inspired word is illumed, so it seems to defeat the purpose of bible study to read any other versions other then direct word for word translations. Yet I can see pastors using easy to understand language for the lost to understand the gospel in the same way we might use our own allegory in communicating the gospel in a witnessing situation. And it should be made clear that these types of translations are offered for this purpose only.

http://www.CrazyAboutChurch.com Charles Specht

I agree, Tom. The NASB was written for, if memory serves me right, for about or 6th or 8th grade reader. The NIV, for example, and if memory serves me right, was written for about a 2nd or 3rd grade reader. Thus the difference in readability for some people.