Which Bible Translation Should You Read?
Which Bible translation should you read?
This seems like one of the most basic questions a believer ought to ask. There is literally a mountain of Bible translations along with passionate defenders of each translation—I see you, KJV only brothers! So, what about you?
The Best Translation
Well, the best Bible translation is no translation at all.
If you want the word of God unfiltered, then learn biblical Greek and/or Hebrew and read the Bible in its original language. The unbelievable and blatantly supernatural mountain of New Testament manuscripts has enabled scholars to assemble a New Testament with remarkable accuracy, certain of its faithfulness to the original autographs. Most modern translations are based upon one of two textual bases, the Textus Receptus for the King James/New King James version and the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland for most others.
There are tons of resources available to help you in this regard. It will take years to develop even a modicum of proficiency, but it’s doable. I know several men who are proficient in Greek and their ability to read the Bible in its original language aids them greatly. However, even if you never become proficient in Greek—spoiler, you probably won’t—even a basic knowledge of the Greek language will do nothing but assist you in your biblical studies.
So, for the rest of us mortals, which translation should we read?
What Does God Want?
A better question might be, which translation does God want us to read? God cares about His words. Words matter. They matter to God, and He has much to say about His word. He writes:
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
To add to the word of God or take away from it is a serious matter, punishable under the wrath of God. Words matter to God. His word matters. Therefore, we ought not to change the word of God. The problem is that all translations, by necessity, change the word of God in some way.
Here, we must understand the difference between translation and interpretation as it relates to differing methodologies of translation. Per Merriam Webster,
Translate: to turn into one's own or another language.
Interpret: to explain or tell the meaning of: present in understandable terms.
If translators merely translated the original Greek word-for-word, we would be left with a frequently incomprehensible document. Languages do not always translate well word-for-word. Idioms, figures of speech, different cultural ideas and patterns of thought ensure this. In many cases, the translators must make an interpretive call as to what the author intended, as to what he meant. There is a spectrum from formal (word-for-word) to dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought).
Formal equivalence is a general word-for-word translation, a more literal approach, seeking to remain true to the original words while resisting interpretive calls unless necessary.
Dynamic equivalence is a more thought-for-thought translation, a more interpretive approach seeking to remain true to the original meaning.
Let’s look at a passage to demonstrate the difference between translation and interpretation. Examine the differences in Luke 9:44:
“Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.” (NASB ’95)
“Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.” (NIV)
Do you see the difference? The translators of the NASB translated the words of the authors and left the phrase, “let these words sink into your ears.” The NIV translators made an interpretive call, and for the record, I think a correct interpretive call, in interpreting the phrase as, “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.” They interpreted the meaning. Here, the NASB translated; the NIV interpreted. It seems like the NIV got it right, but do you recall our original proposition, that we ought not to change the word of God. Words matter. God’s word matters.
Let’s examine another passage, Romans 2:4:
Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (NASB ’95)
Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (ESV)
Here you can see that the ESV adds to the text words not in the original which changes the actual meaning of the text. The text says that God’s kindness leads to repentance. The ESV softens it, paraphrasing it as, it is intended to lead to repentance, not that it actually does. It is just meant to. The ESV translators made an interpretive call and here, I believe it would stand against the meaning of the original text. Do you see the difference?
Now, by necessity all Biblical translations change the word of God some, falling somewhere on the spectrum from formal to dynamic equivalence. According to God’s own word, the translation that changes the text the least would be the most ideal translation. As such, we would consider translations closest to the formal equivalence end of the spectrum best.
The New American Standard Bible (NASB 1995 version), the King James/New King James Version (KJV/NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the newer Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) fall closest to the formal equivalence end of the spectrum, that is, they are the most literal.
Another factor to consider is translation motive and agenda. Unfortunately, we increasingly see agendas creeping into translations whereby the translators make interpretive calls that clearly reveal said agenda. For example, in the last two decades we see a proliferation of Bible translations with deliberately gender-neutral language which is not faithful to the original text. The 2020 version of the NASB is guilty as charged and for this reason, we favor the 1995 edition.
What about readability? Granted the less literal translations are easier to read for sure. Readability is important, but is it more important than remaining as true as possible to the actual words of the text? It’s not as if the literal translations cannot be understood. It may just require a bit of work on our behalf.
Avoid at All Cost
1. Paraphrases
A paraphrase is not a translation.
The most (in)famous paraphrase is The Message, published from 1993 to 2003 by Eugene Peterson. To his credit, he translated from the original language, but he uses highly idiomatic language and sometimes even contemporary slang. It is in on the extreme far end of the dynamic equivalence spectrum as Peterson makes interpretive call after interpretive call. Again, it is a paraphrase, not a translation. As such, The Message is not the Bible. The Living Bible, published in 1971, is another well-known paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor. Unlike Peterson, Taylor doesn’t even translate from the original language, instead choosing to translate from the 1901 American Standard Version. Read a paraphrase if you feel led but understand that it isn’t Scripture.
2. The Passion Translation
Also a paraphrase, The Passion Translation (TPT) gets a special mention because of its increasing prevalence. Similar to other paraphrases, it is the work of a single author, Brian Simmons, who claims that Jesus visited him in a vision commanding him to write a new translation of the Bible.
Unsurprisingly, Bill Johnson from the heretical Bethel Church in Redding, California praised the work as, “One of the greatest things to happen with Bible translations in my lifetime.” As their own website says, “The Passion Translation (TPT) is a heart-level translation (I’m not even sure what that means) that uses Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts to express God’s fiery heart of love to this generation, merging the emotion and life-changing truth of God’s Word.”
Actual biblical scholars have not been as impressed:
Dr. Andrew Shead:
“Any church that treats it as such and receives it as canon will, by that very action, turn itself into an unorthodox sect.”
“To package it as Scripture is an offence against God.”
Simmons abandons “all interest in textual accuracy, playing fast and loose with the original languages, and inserting so much new material into the text that it is at least 50% longer than the original.”
“The result is a strongly sectarian translation that no longer counts as Scripture; by masquerading as a Bible it threatens to bind entire churches in thrall to a false god.”
Dr. Andrew Wilson
“It’s not a translation. It’s an interpolation, or a gloss, or (more bluntly) an addition.”
Compare the translation for the single text of 2 Timothy 4:2:
New American Standard Bible (1995): preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
The Passion Translation (TPT): proclaim the Word of God and stand upon it no matter what! Rise to the occasion and preach when it is convenient and when it is not. Preach in the full expression of the Holy Spirit-with wisdom and patience as you instruct and teach the people.
You can readily see that Simmons not only deletes Scripture, i.e. reprove and rebuke, but adds to it, even making things up that aren’t even remotely included. The discerning reader will avoid TPT at all costs. It’s not Scripture, but something else masquerading as Scripture often reflecting the dangerous theology of the New Apostolic Reformation.
3. The New World Translation
The New World Translation is also not a Bible.
First published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961, it is a heretical perversion of the Scriptures promoting the false theology of the Jehovah’s Witness cult. The danger is in its subtlety. To the undiscerning eye, it would be practically indistinguishable from the actual Bible. The addition of a word here. The removal of a word there. With a small change of an article from definite to indefinite, they produce a work that denies some of the fundamental basics of Christianity such as the deity of Christ.
We encountered this danger first-hand when we went to visit a friend, and her son came running up, “Mr. Brad, look at this Bible I got at a yard sale!” I took a quick look and “Yikes!” it was the New World Translation. Not to discourage the kid, I feigned interest and then later, subtly made it disappear after replacing it with another legitimate version.
Again, the undiscerning reader may not even notice, so subtle is the devilish work of the New World Translation and its authors. It is not the Bible.
My Translation Journey
My wife and I started attending church as a New Year’s resolution in January 2005 so, I needed a Bible. Not knowing anything, I bought a King James version and that is the version I read for a year or two until I tried reading it that is! For the record, I love my KJV and some Scripture just doesn’t sound right unless it is from the KJV, the 23rd Psalm comes to mind, or the Lord’s prayer. Yet, few modern readers could understand any of the original 1611 version, but even with the present version, the archaic language sometimes renders it impossible to understand. Consider a few examples if you will:
Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. (Psalm 37:8)
I have no idea what it means to “fret not thyself in any wise to do evil,” and I’d suggest that neither do you.
Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (Colossians 2:23)
Again, I have no idea what, “not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh,” means.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)
To succour? My spell check doesn’t recognize that word and neither did I, nor do you.
My first modern translation was the HCSB, the Holman Christian Standard Bible. My father-in-law gifted it to me and so I read it and I still have it and still love it. However, as I was appointed an elder in my church and began to preach occasionally, the other elders who used the ESV would joke about my HCSB, the Hard-Core Southern Baptist translation! I shrugged it off, but deep down I coveted their ESVs and wondered if I too should switch to the ESV, the translation preferred by my home church pastor and many of our theologically reformed brethren.
So, I took a chance. I bought an ESV thin line which I loved and preached from for several years. I wore it out, no kidding. The cover began to come off and so I inquired to my friend who runs Cherry Hill Bibles (www.cherryhillbibles.com) about rebinding it. I took his quote to my Distinguished Director of Resource Management who suggested in return that my tattered Bible possessed character, and that to rebind it would be to remove all its character. So, I prayed about a new one…
…and Mr. Neil, one of my deacons and best friends, got it for me. I couldn’t have loved a Bible more than my large print ESV preaching Bible. It had no notes or footnotes, only the word of God, in large enough print that I could almost read it without my glasses. He even had it imprinted on the front “Pastor Bradford Smith”. I just about burst with delight carrying it around. It was about this time that I invested in a Creel Preaching Notebook—sorry, he has since retired from making them. Coupled with my new ESV, I felt as if I could preach the paint off the wall.
Yet, my own teaching began to haunt me. The ESV was close to formal equivalence, but I increasingly noticed questionable interpretations in the text which forced me to continuously consult one other version, the NASB. Would I dare? How could I shelf Mr. Neil’s perfect gift?
Finally, I had to do it. I stepped out and bought a thin-line NASB, ’95 version mind you, and I’ve been in love ever since. Yet, I had one final step to take. I had to make amends.
As I moved on from the KJV, with its Textus Receptus textual basis, I found myself having scorn for the TR-based KJV and its contemporary ally, the NKJV. So ardent were the KJV-only constituents, and so unreasonable, that I found myself for several years holding them and their translation up to just as much contempt as they did for modern translations, though I’d never admit it publicly. Yet, the more I studied, I came full-circle and began to appreciate the TR and ultimately, I can’t believe I’m going to say this, the NKJV. The last Bible I bought for my recent mission trip to Peru was a parallel RVR 1960/NKJV and I absolutely love it. My NASB ’95 remains my main preaching/teaching text, but I still cherish and use the others.
I’m sure that my translation journey isn’t finished. I’ve yet to investigate the new Legacy Standard Bible, but I certainly intend to. In hindsight, it’s interesting how my journey through translations mirrored my own faith walk, my own journey in following Christ, and what a journey it’s been.
What About You?
In summation, we recommend without any reservation the NASB (1995 version), the Legacy Standard Bible, and NKJV. Read the ESV with caution, checking its interpretations against the more literal translations or the original language if able.
If you read another translation than these, pray about it, and read multiple versions. Compare the languages. Yet, as long as it’s an actual Bible, not a paraphrase, then you ought to read the one you have. If God desires you to switch translations, He’ll lead you in that regard, just as He did me.
Happy reading!
