Bible Translations
What version of the Bible do you typically read? I’m an NIV guy…at least I was. I’ve used the NIV for as long as I can remember, and I’ve never really thought about using another translation as my primary source. Currently, I have two Bibles that I use - a NIV study Bible and a Parallel Bible. Each is good in different situations. The study Bible is, as the name implies, good for studying and the Parallel Bible allows me to compare passages in four different translations, which I find helpful for church services, group Bible studies and other situations.
However, after reading some articles, I think I’m going to switch over to the ESV translation. Here’s one of the articles that I’ve read: Pastoral Reflections on Bible Translations.
In this article, the author, Mark Driscoll, groups the different translations as follows:
Word-for-Word Translations
- ESV (English Standard Version)
- HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
- KJV (King James Version)
- NASB (New American Standard Bible)
- NKJV (New King James Version)
- NRSV (New Revised Standard Version)
- RSV (Revised Standard Version)
Thought-for-Thought Translations
- NCV (New Century Version)
- NIV (New International Version)
- TNIV (Today’s New International Version)
- NLT (New Living Translation)
- CEV (Contemporary English Version)
- GNB (Good News Bible)
- REB (Revised English Bible)
Paraphrases
- NTME (New Testament in Modern English (Phillips))
- TAB (The Amplified Bible)
- TLB (The Living Bible)
- TM (The Message)
- TSB (The Street Bible)
Corruptions
- New World Translation
Here are brief descriptions of each type listed above:
Word-for-Word
Word-for-word translations (also known as literal translations) make a special effort to carefully interpret each word from their original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into English. Word-for-word translations emphasize God, the divine author of Scripture, over the human reader of Scripture. The result is a striving for the precision of what the Bible says, much like one would expect in other important communications, such as legal documents, marriage vows, or contracts. Word-for-word translations are generally a high school reading level. Word-for-word translations tend to be the best for studying because of their accuracy, though they sometimes lose the poetic nuances of the original languages.Thought-for-Thought
Thought-for-thought translations (also known as dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence) attempt to convey the full nuance of each passage by interpreting the Scripture’s entire meaning and not just the individual words. Thought-for-thought translations may include words that were not included in the original text in an effort to give the same meaning that the reader of the original languages would have had.Paraphrase
Paraphrased translations pay even less attention to specific word meanings than thought-for-thought translations in an attempt to capture the poetic or narrative essence of a passage. For this reason, many paraphrased translations do not even have verses divisions in them.Corruption
Corruptions are “translations” of Scripture that clearly seek to undermine the very teaching of Scripture. These “translations” are very poor and should not be used as credible translations for study. These include the Jehovah’s Witness translation called the New World Translation, which was written in large part to eliminate the deity of Jesus Christ.
I found these groupings interesting, not something that I had thought about before. Each type of translation, other than the corruptions, serves a purpose and are useful in different ways and situations. Having used a thought-for-thought translation for years, it’ll be interesting to use a word-for-word version as my primary source. My parallel Bible has the NASB version (a word-for-word), so I’m going to start paying more attention to that version versus NIV in my studies.
Loading ...
Oct 8th, 2007 at 21:52:52
The NASB is awesome. I have its first edition (’77, I believe), but there’s also a ‘95(?) that has quite a few improvements.
The ESV & NKJV are also constant companions, so to speak, as is the KJV.
And while it’s not in the list above, I’ve also made some use of John N. Darby’s Translation.
Oct 8th, 2007 at 22:53:40
I primarily use the NIV version because that’s what you gave me a few years back, Chris, and it’s really the only Bible I have.
Though I also really like The Message. Not exactly the most accurate translation, but the interpretations are interesting to read.
I’ve seen you mention Driscoll a few times. Meh, don’t get me started on that hypocritical fascist. All I’m going to say is he really needs to stop skipping over Mark Chapter 6 verses 1-6 (in fact all contemperary and tradtional churches should stop skipping over the Gospel according to Mark as a whole). Driscoll also tries to say he’s part of the Emerging Church movement. Uh… no… he’s not. He just… doesn’t represent or understand the movement at all.
Dude, I’ve got a blog entry to go write. hah.
Though I pose a question to anyone reading this:
Why do you support and hold your country so highly?
Jesus clearly says to do otherwise in Mark Ch. 4 verses 8-10
later.
Oct 9th, 2007 at 16:01:36
interesting…
i love the message bible and the niv. i’ve heard very good things about the ncv and esv, though. however, i think each translation holds special purpose for individual people. i’m not going to bash any specific one as long as someone choses to read it. enjoy!
Oct 9th, 2007 at 20:38:15
I’m with Nick. If (insert translation here) is what speaks to you, then rock on. You’re found the right one. (The Message rocks my world, and before that I was mostly reading from an NIV.)
I’ve come accross categorical breakdowns of Bible translations before. I’d do your own research though before taking this guy’s word as “gospel,” if you will. Cool post. I’m going to check out the “New World Translation” to see what’s so corrupt about it. Hope your week is a fun one, homey.
Oct 9th, 2007 at 20:45:08
“And now for something completely different…” Over at theonion.com, behold this radio news headline:
Christian Slater reports that “Christian Slater has still got that ‘Christian Slater magic.’” I can’t listent to it here in Covington Land, but I thought the headline was worth sharing.
Oct 9th, 2007 at 23:04:12
Actually, the ESV is not a word for word translation and the NIV is not a thought for thought translation. The GNB and CEV are thought for thought translations. Youngs Literal Translation is fairly close to being a word for word translation. Interlinear translations are word for word translation. It is more accurate to use the label that the ESV team uses for the ESV, that it is “essentially literal.” The ESV is slightly more literal than the NIV translation, which is also a relatively literal translation.
Feel free to look at my quantified studies comparing the ESV, NIV, and several other English versions for degree of literalness, and several other translation factors.
Best wishes in your search for improved Bible versions.
Oct 10th, 2007 at 07:59:08
Thanks, Wayne, I’ll check out your link.
Oct 14th, 2007 at 22:42:11
I meant the Book of Matthew, not the book of Mark.
Nov 1st, 2007 at 17:01:32
a lot of the translations, if you compare it to the NWT line up in someways. NIV has many missing verses, the NWT has the very same verses missing!
That is all, thought I’d share that with you.
Feb 2nd, 2008 at 17:39:13
I have enjoyed reading the postings. I have been unable to “dig out” your name and find the black background and the low contrast between the typed characters and the background very difficult to read.
I am 61 years old and have been studying “The” book since I can remember. My studies were originally in the King James only but over the years I have added SEVERAL others.
Recently, I discovered a book “Bible Study for Joy and Profit” by Charlie Brackett of Chattanooga that is very enjoyable. The publisher is
Clarion Word Publishing
P.O. Box 21277
Chattanooga, TN 37424
http://www.clarionword.com
You may find this interesting.
I would love to “chat” with you as you have opportunity.