What Bible Should I Use?

This post is a response to a question coming from one reader who decided to tell me what to write. The reader question boils down to this: There are many English translations of the Bible and a lot of controversy over some of them. Which should we read?

There are two major considerations when choosing a translation: source text and translation philosophy.

Source Text

Bible translators must decide which “family” of documents they will use. This is really only a consideration when discussing the New Testament because the Hebrew tradition is pretty well standard. There are two “families” of the New Testament: the “received” and the “critical.”

The “received” text family (also called “Byzantine”) is a collection of Greek New Testaments (GNTs) which were the standard texts of the Eastern Churches. As one text passed out of its usable life, it was copied and the new text was used. This was the only GNT for most of Church history.

The second text family is called the “critical” text. In the past two hundred years or so, with modern advances in archaeology, we have discovered very early copies of the GNT. Scholars have pieced together very early fragments to recreate the content the earliest copies of the “received” text must have contained.

The major controversy in the “received vs critical” debate is that the received text is slightly longer. The early manuscripts of the GNT are “missing” some words found in the received text. The difference is almost certainly due to scribes incorporating small, typically inconsequential, edits or additions to the text. For example, one common occurrence is the addition of “Christ” after the word “Jesus” in the received text. These differences make almost no difference to the text itself and in all but one case have no theological significance.

Though there are some who will only read from their preferred text family, most readers will not see any difference between English translations from the two source texts. The real difference is in translation philosophy.

Translation Philosophy

There are two dominant translation philosophies and a third option that also warrants discussion. They are, in order of “literalness,” formal equivalent, dynamic equivalent and paraphrase.

Formal Equivalence: This is commonly called a “word-for-word” translation. It is an attempt to recreate the original Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT) text into English with as much precision as possible. These translations are incredibly exact but can sometimes be a little “wooden” because they are following the grammar and syntax of foreign languages.

Examples: NASB, ESV, NET, KJV

Dynamic Equivalence: These translations try to capture a “phrase-by-phrase” or “thought-by-thought” rendering of the text. They are, for the most part, easier to read. The main criticism of this translation philosophy is that the translators must add interpretation to their translation. Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this from the translation philosophy.* To the credit of most dynamically equivalent translations bias in translation rarely makes an impact on these translations. However, there are certain verses where the translators have made a theological decision in rendering the text one way or the other without the reader’s knowledge.

Examples: NIV, NLT

Paraphrase: I add paraphrases to this list reluctantly: They are not translations. Paraphrases are not attmpts to render the original texts in English but describe an author’s own interpretation of it. The benefit of these Bibles is their “readability” – they flow extremely well. The main drawback is their lack of precision and the large amount of interpretation involved.

Examples: The Message

So, what Bible should I use?

That’s impossible to answer. My best advice is not to rely on one translation. I use two different formal equivalent translations (primarily the ESV) for my study and a dynamic equivalent translation for devotional study. That’s just how I operate best. Your needs may be different.

Oh, and don’t bother with the Amplified Bible. It’s the worst of both worlds: It puts every possible meaning of the Greek/Hebrew word in the text and essentially gives you the option to “choose your own adventure” with the text. It’s very hard to read and is more confusing than helpful.

*Formal Equivalent translations also suffer from this problem – it is impossible to create a true word-for-word translation – but they do not have it in nearly as many instances, nor is the interpretation as significant.

Image by Ryk Neethling

Further Reading:
The Only 3 Bible Study Resources You’ll Ever Need Free!
Supercharge Your Bible Study
Finding Christ in All of Scripture

Like what you just read?

Get each new Christ-centered:

...sent directly to your inbox for free!

Never any spam!

Or subscribe to the RSS feed.

9 thoughts on “What Bible Should I Use?

  1. Good summary.

    I choose the ESV for most of the time – the equivalence is pretty good. Not perfect, but pretty good. NKJV was my fave before it!

    1. Drewe,
      I used to use the NASB because I was enamored with literal translations but the literary quality of the ESV has really made me enjoy it. It’s very reminiscent of the KJV and NKJV tradition. That and the HCSB have been my favorite translations as of late. I’ve been really enjoying your work on the “Who is God?” series. I think I might be referencing it in an upcoming post if I have the nerve to post something really controversial.
      God Bless!

      1. Quite the opposite – I’m considering mixing some of your thoughts with a bit of AW Tozer magic and applying it to a touchy subject. It might make a good guest post if you’re interested.

  2. I’m glad you used the correct terms, even if some people don’t understand them as well. Word for word is misleading and I’m glad you used Formal Equivalence.

    One quibble I would have is putting the NIV and NLT together. I think the NIV is more formal than many think and would at least be a median between Formal and Dynamic, as would be the HCSB and maybe the NET too. NLT, GNT and GW are squarely Dynamic in my estimation. Also regarding dynamic, all translations have to go one way or the other. I think it’s the footnotes that would be where we would know if they zigged or zagged.

    I learned some things about “received vs critical”. Thanks.

    1. Jeff,
      You’re right that the NIV and NLT are very different. Within the spectrum of dynamic equivalent translations they pretty much make up the boundaries.
      I didn’t really think to add anything regarding footnotes. Are there additions you think this might need?
      Thanks for the thoughts!

    1. Thanks for sharing that link Keryn. For those who haven’t clicked through, it supports the received text family and tries to cast the critical text in a negative light. Let’s take a quick look at it:

      “When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.”
      This is a non-argument because there wasn’t a choice. When the reformers were translating the critical text did not yet exist. The Westcott and Hort edition, for example, wasn’t published until 1881.

      “The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah’s Witness bible (“New World Translation”), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text…”
      Grouping orthodox translations with the apostate NWT is a nice trick. The NWT isn’t actually a translation since it was willfully manipulated to deny the Trinity. All this serves to do is cast doubt on perfectly legitimate translations.

      “…which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts”
      This misunderstands what the critical text is. The critical text is a rendering of the Greek NT based on all available copies. This means that it takes into account the received text family and compares them with the older manuscripts. At the end of the day, the best-attested rendering (on the basis of age and frequency of attestation) is used.

      I could go on but there’s really no need. I don’t recommend readers use that website as a resource. Also, the fact that this appears on a KJV-only website is a dead giveaway.

Comments are closed.