Finding the right Bible in the Family Christian Store can be like finding a specific tree in an overgrown forest. There are Bibles for women, Bibles for men, and Bibles for children. There are parallel Bibles and study Bibles and interlinear Bibles and picture Bibles. There’s hard back, soft back, leather-bound, and metal cased. There’s a seemingly endless variety of translations. There’s even a new Veggie Tales Bible. Choosing the right Bible can be overwhelming.
Translations vary from strictly literal and highly accurate word-for-word translations to more narrative and understandable thought-for-thought translations. In general, as accuracy increases, readability decreases. And as readability increases, accuracy decreases. When choosing a translation, you need to take into account those two variables: accuracy and readability.
Zondervan has a very helpful graphic for determining where translations fall on the accuracy-readability continuum. They also show a sample verse in several different translations here.
Here are some helpful terms:
Translation: a textual conversion created from the original languages.
Version: a revision of a translation. The English translation is used as the source text, not the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.
Literal translation: staying as close as possible to the original wording, even if some of the meaning, nuance, understanding, and readability is lost. Examples include the New American Standard Bible (NASB) (strictly literal), King James (KJV), American Standard (ASV), and Revised Standard (RSV).
Literal with Freedom to be Idiomatic- New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Thought-for-thought: translates the thought or the phrase and opposed to word-for-word. The New International Version (NIV) has one of the best combinations and balances of accuracy and readability.
Dynamic Equivalent: this translation falls between the literal translation and the paraphrase. As opposed to word-for-word translation, it translates thought-for-thought. It converts certain literary devices of the biblical languages into their English equivalents. Examples include the New Living Translation (NLT) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV).
Paraphrase: attempts to convey the meaning of the text without translating word-for-word. Sometimes, additional comments are included to provide interpretation or clarification. Examples include the Living Bible (LB) and the Message (MSG).
The translation you choose will depend on the purpose of your reading. If you are studying or memorizing, I would recommend a more literal translation. If you are reading large chunks at a time for the purpose of absorbing the story, I would recommend a more readable translation. If you are reading to look at familiar passages from a fresh perspective, I would recommend a more readable translation. If you are preparing for a sermon, use the more literal translation.
I use literal translations (like NASB), interlinear, and parallel Bibles for studying. I typically use NIV or NLT for general reading. And I typically preach from the NLT because I believe it probably comes closest to “sounding” to modern ears like it was intended to “sound” to ancient ears.
There are many different “Bible” versions today claiming to be the Word of God. Each one tells us that it is the most reliable, most accurate, etc. etc.. But which of them is God’s Word? Since they all disagree with one another, we can’t possibly say that they all are. Can we? Are we to suppose that God has written more than one Bible and that he makes statements in one and then disagrees with himself in another? No, of course not. God only wrote one Bible. How, then, do we go about determining which “Bible” is the Bible? If we look to human opinion for the answer, we will find nearly as many opinions as we find people. One person will like one. Another person will prefer another. Yet a third person will assure us that it really doesn’t matter, telling us that any of them will do just fine. Since we aren’t interested in human opinion here, we need to look to scripture for help in resolving this issue. There are two questions that we will need to consider. (1) Which are the correct manuscripts?
(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts? Go to website for answer.
KJV
September 27th, 2006
Hey, KJV. I’m not sure who you are or how you came to this site for the small group leaders of our church. But we’ve just got to agree to disagree on this one. There’s no way we can get the “most reliable, most accurate” unless we go all the way back to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. And since God told us to go into all the world (and his word was preached in many languages on the day of Pentecost), then we have to rely on good contextualization into other languages. Which means there will be several versions and translations.
And as we learn more, discover new and older manuscripts, we will have better translations. You just can’t convince me that KJV is the best. Sorry.
We’ve discovered new things since then– older manuscripts, improved translation methods, etc. I grew up on KJV. It’s the first Bible I owned. That’s what I read when I was 5. So I’ve got not problem with it. It’s just not the best translation. And I guess that’s where we have to disagree. 
Heather Z
September 28th, 2006
1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God’s pure words somewhere. If it isn’t the KJV, then what is it?
2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it’s duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.
3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t.
4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that “kept” God’s word (Rev. 3:8).
5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we’d know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book–the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26. May God give you discernment in this very important matter.
KJV
September 28th, 2006
KJV- Thanks for your comments. Again, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. I would love to do a point-by-point counterargument to each of these statements, but I am not going to debate you in this forum because it’s just not the purpose of this blog.
Zonegathering is designed to equip and train the small group leaders at National Community Church. Not to engage in public debate with those outside of the NCC small group leader community. We are a public forum because we do believe that it is healthy for our leaders to hear the views of those outside our community. But this is not the place for this kind of debate.
The purpose of this particular post was to point out that not all translations/paraphrases are created equal, but each can serve different purposes.
I value and affirm (and enjoy) a good, honest Christ-centered debate on these topics. But this is not the place for it, and I would respectfully request that you not continue. If you would like to discuss this with me further, please send me an email.
Heather Z
September 28th, 2006