King James Version:
The King James Version is unsurpassed in its sheer beauty and literary value, a masterpiece of the seventeenth century English language in which it was written. Unfortunately, this seventeenth century language is the language of a bygone era.
Many words found in the KJV are obsolete today, while others have a totally different meaning than they did then. Moreover, discoveries have been made in the last 350 years in the field of linguistics, history and archaeology that justify further translations of the Bible.
Indeed the King James Version was itself a mere revision of the Bishops Bible, not a new translation. As new knowledge came to light, and the English language changed, the church felt obligated to produce a more accurate translation of the Word of God. Revision and correction of past translations was thought not only desirable, but absolutely necessary to communicate the Word of God.
Revised Version:
The great value of the Revised Version is that it set a precedent for further translations which could incorporate the latest manuscript and linguistic and historical evidence into their versions.
No single translation is perfect, and as new discoveries come to light improvements can and should be made. The Revised Version has limited value in the fact that it does not have the advantage of the great linguistic advances and manuscript discoveries of the 20th century. Moreover, the revisers leaned too heavily on the Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism which has been seriously challenged in the 20th century. Although upon its release the Revised Version enjoyed immediate popularity, it is not commonly used today.
American Standard Version:
The American Standard Version was the product of the best American scholarship of its day. It has the advantage of being published twenty years after the New Testament of the Revised Version.
Limitations exist, however, because the American Standard Version is still a product of its own time, not having the advantage of the wealth of discoveries and advances made in the 20th century. As was the case with the Revised Version, the language was not modernized, leading to such archaic ways of stating things as, The abjects gathered themselves together against me (Psalm 35:35), and He assayed to join Himself to the disciples (Acts 9:26).
Nevertheless it was the best translation of the day and served as the basis for two other revisions, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. Although the American Standard Version is somewhat uncommon today, its positive contributions were widely enjoyed through these two revisions.
Revised Standard Version:
The value of the Revised Standard Version lies in the fact that the language was brought up to current usage. The biblical story was made much more understandable to the masses. Also the translators had the advantage of the great discoveries in the study of comparative languages.
Near Easter religious texts unearthed in the 20th century shed much light on the meaning of certain Hebrew words., and the unearthing of Greek papyri demonstrated beyond all doubt that biblical Greek was not some unique Holy Ghost language but rather the common vernacular of the first century.
But the Revised Standard Version is not without problems. Many of the Old Testament passages which prophesy the coming of the Messiah are obscured in this version. For example, Psalm 45:6 is rendered, Your Diving throne endures for ever and ever, rather than the better translation, Thy throne, O God.
In Isaiah 7:14 the Revised Standard Version has, Behold, a young woman shall conceive, rather than the better translation, Behold, a virgin shall conceive. Since the New Testament cites both those passages as referring to the Messiah it would have been better for the Revised Standard Version to acknowledge unity between the Testaments. These inconsistencies take away from an otherwise good translation.
Phillips Translation:
The Phillips Translation is valuable because it restates the New Testament in a fresh, readable way that provides new insights into the New Testament for even the most knowledgeable reader. The readability is enhanced by the format which contains headings for each section and omits verse numbers. The layout of this work lends itself to easy reading.
But easy reading does not necessarily signify something desirable. Phillips, contrary to the claim, presents a paraphrase, not a translation. His revised edition has improved somewhat on this weakness, but his work is still interpretive and highly questionable at points, reflecting his inadequate view of Scripture.
British expressions which sound peculiar to American ears also limit his edition in some places.
The Phillips New Testament, like The Good News Bible, is a fine way to introduce someone to the biblical story. But it should not be relied upon for critical study.
The Modern Language Bible:
The Modern Language Bible has many commendable features, not the least of which is its faithful rendering of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament (as stated in the preface to the 1959 edition):
We are in tune with the Authorized Version of 1611 in fidelity to the Messianic Promise, first made as soon as man had sinned, renewed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, narrowed to Judahs offspring and later to Davids descendants. This promise remained the hope of the worshiping Hebrews, whose prophets stimulated their faith, and Jesus reminded the Emmaus pilgrims of it, starting from Moses and through all the prophets
in all the Scriptures that referred to Himself. To be faithful to this everlasting Evangel we needed to be faithful to the original Scriptures.
(This is in contrast to the Revised Standard Version which, unhappily, is inconsistent in translating prophecies referring to Jesus.)
Another good feature of the Modern Language Bible is the accomplishment of its desire to be a literal translation of the Greek and Hebrew, rather than an interpretive paraphrase. The result is a faithful rendering of the original. However, in places it is too literal to be completely readable.
The notes, a product of the highest evangelical scholarship, provide great benefits to the reader. The Modern Language Bible is an excellent translation done with the highest reverence for the Scripture and can be of great value to anyone who desires to read and study the Word of God.
The Amplified Bible:
The value of The Amplified Bible lies in its ability to expand the meaning of the original texts. Its service is more that of a commentary than a translation.
Although The Amplified Bible can be helpful in bringing out some of the meaning of words and expressions, several weaknesses limit its effectiveness. For example, in some of the passages it is difficult to follow the thought of the writer. This is due to the added, expansive words put into the text. In this sense, the amplifications are a hindrance rather than a help.
For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, the repetition of amplifying the word blessed (Matthew 5:3-11) is not only unnecessary; it is monotonous.
Furthermore, the Aplified Bible suffers from the same problems as the paraphrases: It is highly interpretive. The theological bias of the amplifier cannot help but show through when the meaning of words and expressions are given. Although the preparers of The Amplified Bible have a high view of the Bible, many of their amplifications are totally subjective and open to argumentation.
The Amplified Bible should be used only alongside a good translation, never studied by itself.
The Jerusalem Bible:
The value of the Jerusalem Bible, besides being an easy-to-read translation, is in its extensive notes. These are a helpful aid to better understanding the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that this is a Catholic Bible. As such, the notes have definite leanings toward Roman Catholicism.
Although the notes are not as objectionable to Protestants as have been notes in other Catholic Bibles, they still contain teachings with which Protestants respectfully disagree. These include the Doctrine of Purgatory, the Primacy of Peter, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (for example, notes on 1 Corinthians 3:15, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 1:25). Hence, in most cases Protestants will not find this translation satisfactory, although Roman Catholics would receive it wholeheartedly.
The Good News Bible:
One of the great values of the Good News Bible is its ability to put the Word of God into understandable English. Those who know English as a second language will find the Good News Bible easy to follow. The simplifications of technical terms also will be of great benefit to those who have no background in Christianity.
Moreover, the translation is aided by the many line drawings by Mlle Annie Vallotton which accompany the text. The message is graphically portrayed by both the effective drawings and the clear simple English contained in the translation.
However, there are serious limitations in this work. The concept of dynamic equivalence is a highly questionable way of translating the Scriptures. By giving the meaning of the text rather than a translation of what it literally says, the translator goes beyond his role and becomes an interpreter.
Accuracy is sacrificed at the alter of readability, and the reader is left with the false impression that the dynamic equivalent rendering is what the text actually says. The idea of simplifying expressions is fine. But sometimes they can be made too simple. Furthermore, the Good News Bible, in its interpretations, sometimes renders a verse totally wrong.
A classic example is 2 Corinthians 5:21 which reads, Christ was without sin, but for our sake God made Him to share our sin. This statement is in no way accurate, for God put our sins upon Christ on the cross. He did not in any way share sin with us.
The Good News Bible, like The Living Bible, is a good way to introduce someone to the basic story of the Bible. But it should not be uses as a study Bible or as a source of establishing Bible doctrine.