So Many Bible Translations:

Which One Should I Use?

The legitimate use of various English translations of Scripture is an important Bible study tool.  The King James Version (KJV) was first published in 1611 by the authority and support of King James I.  It is a beautiful and elegant translation of the original languages by forty-seven scholars in Elizabethan English.  The KJV contributed significantly to the development of the English language.  The KJV was intended to correspond with the Bishop’s Bible, or The Leda Bible, (1568) except where the original languages differed.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) was completed in 1971 by fifty-four Protestant scholars and sponsored by the Lockman Foundation.  The NASB is a formal correspondence translation.  The goal of this translation was to make the words, order of words, and forms of the words resemble the structure of the original languages as closely as possible.

The New International Version (NIV) was completed in 1978.  It was the work of one hundred fifteen scholars.  It is a dynamic equivalence translation.  The NIV editors analyzed the message of the original languages and then restructured that language to fit the contemporary culture and style of language.  It still sought to maintain faithfulness to the original content and intent of the Old and New Testament authors.

Kenneth N. Taylor completed the Living Bible (LB) in 1971.  It is a paraphrase of the American Standard Version.  The LB is not based on the original languages.  This translation moves toward the extreme of the dynamic equivalence.

The comparison of different translations of the Bible is helpful clarify various phrases, verses, and words in Scripture.  These comparisons also help in making observations concerning a biblical text.  On pages 42-48 of his book, Creative Bible Study Methods (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1977), Ray E. Baughman referred to a method of Bible comparison that he called “panel Bible study” which would be helpful to examine.

The KJV is much more elegant in the usage of vocabulary and grammar than the others.  Sometimes the use of words and phrases are not as plain in meaning as some of the other translations.  The NASB is a bit “clunky” at times.  The translators obviously sought to translate more word-for-word from the original languages than the other.  The NIV is highly readable in contemporary language and offers very minor paraphrases of the original languages.  The LB is very elementary in its translation.

It is common to hear people say there is not one translation of the Bible that is better than the others.  A common reason for such a statement is that even the New Testament writers quoted from various Greek translations of the Old Testament.  Therefore, a brief assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the four translations cited above will be pertinent at this point.

As already stated, the KJV is by far the most beautiful and elegant of the Bible translations.  It appears that today Bible scholars are more scientific in methodology rather than also being artistic.  A major strength of the King James is that it is a highly dignified translation of Scripture.  Additionally, many of the older biblical writings quote from the KJV so that there is a good continuity with biblical scholars of the past.

Of course, there are numerous Christians who think that the KJV is difficult to understand due to its archaic language.  Certainly, this can be understood but perhaps it should also be contended that modern students of the Word work a little harder in order to appreciate this significant translation.  It appears that this argument is often an excuse for laziness.  Science and math classes employ difficult language, but one will be diligent to understand the scientific language to appreciate the subject matter more fully.  Therefore, the KJV should not be “written off” too quickly.  Furthermore, although the language is archaic it is not impossible to use a good dictionary to appreciate the language of the KJV.

Nevertheless, a weakness of the KJV is that it is not based on some of the better Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  The Textus Receptus was not as accurate as the translations upon which the modern versions of the Bible are based.  The Byzantine manuscripts were much older than the Alexandrian manuscripts.

The NASB is extremely faithful to the original languages in terms of structure and vocabulary.  This is a significant strength of this modern translation.  On the other hand, the weakness of this formal correspondence is that at times it can be somewhat “wooden.”  Apart from this one weakness, the NASB is highly concerned with faithfulness to the original languages.  This version is understandable and even uses a contemporary style of language.  It also paraphrases much less than the other modern Bible translations (although all translations are subject to some paraphrase of the original languages).

In 1995, there was an update of the NASB published that made this version even more readable while preserving the meaning of the original languages in a highly literal fashion.  Even though the KJV and NASB are formal translations they do maintain some degree of dynamic equivalence that sacrifices literalness to make the original languages more understandable in the receptor language.  It is contended that the NASB is a healthy balance between accuracy and readability.

As already stated, the NIV is a dynamic equivalence translation; this is its chief weakness.  For instance, the NIV paraphrases much more than the KJV and NASB.  What has resulted, at times, is the interpretation of the translators rather than the original meaning; this is especially true in regards to passages that deal with the unconditional covenants with Israel as a nation.  The NIV has made these passages less clear than in the original manuscripts (this may be due to the fact that the Christian Reformed Church was a significant influence upon the translating committee).

The strength of the NIV is that it is based upon the older manuscripts.  Additionally, it is restructured in a manner that fits the culture and thinking of contemporary society while still maintaining a highly faithful testimony to the original.  The combination of fashionable, literary English with conventional biblical terminology led to the NIV becoming the best-selling English translation within a decade of its original publication in 1978.

The LB is the paraphrase of the ASV, which was never accepted by the evangelical community.  It is easy to read and still somewhat popular.  However, this student of the Bible does not believe that there is any strength to the LB.  The weaknesses of the LB have to do with the inspiration of Scripture and the sovereignty of God.  If Scripture is a verbal and plenary inspiration (which it is) then the LB has neglected this truth.  Furthermore, if God is sovereign, and He is, then He does not need man’s help to take away from His Word in the attempt to make it “clearer”.

The much-added commentary in the LB deviates from the verbal inspiration of Scripture and for that reason is not recommended.  These may seem like harsh statements to make, but in accordance with Isaiah 55:11 this assessment would be appropriate.  Defenders of the LB would likely admit that it should not be used for serious Bible study, but that it is helpful for light devotional reading.  However, if one truly hungers and thirsts to know the Word of God, in its entirety, why settle for a cheap substitute?  The LB was popular due to the steady dumbing down of American society and laziness of people to diligently study Scripture.

It may be argued that the LB is made simple for non-Christians to understand.  The Gospel is simple enough that a child can believe, and for that child to mature in the things of God, he needs a faithful translation of God’s original message (as He intended to give it) and not as man wants to make it palpable to his desires.  For this reason none would benefit from the LB.

The KJV will benefit those who appreciate a poetic language; this student of the Word prefers the KJV (at times) because it is continuous with older biblical writings.  If a student of Scripture believes that the Majority Text is the best text for the New Testament then he will certainly want to study the KJV, or the more understandable NKJV.

The NASB is a very good translation of the original languages.  Oftentimes, it is more faithful to the original meaning and structure of Scripture than the KJV.  Those who prefer a word-for-word translation will want to study the NASB.

The NIV will appeal to those who want a faithful translation of Scripture that is easier to read than the KJV or NASB.  This student would not recommend the NIV to other Christians since it does reflect the thinking of the translators at times rather than the original manuscripts.  Certainly, if a Christian wants to begin with the NIV for studying this would not pose a problem.  However, it is contended that one should not stay with the NIV and should eventually move toward the KJV or NASB (preferably both) as primary texts for a lifetime of biblical study.