Differences in Bible version texts

[GodLovesCats]

It seems every time people debate about which Bible version is the closest to God's Word they concentrate more on learning Hebrew than actually comparing and contrasting modern English versions to each other. How should we decide what the best Bible version in our native form of English is? This is the question Christians with no knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek or Jewish heritage need to answer.

To start, I used the Parallel Chapter feature on Bible Hub to compare five Genesis 1 texts: NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, and HCSB. (No choice on that list of versions, unfortunately.) The KJV uses a singluar heaven; the other four pluralize it: heavens. Otherwise, 1:1 is identical. But verse 2 is totally different in some versions. So are some later verses in Chapter 1. See here:

Genesis 1 Parallel Chapters

The problem is I don't have the same favorite version for each verse. But I am just a human, a limited thinker who can never understand God completely. If I can understand His Word better by learning about the differences in modern English translations, I am all in to do it.

 

[bekkilyn]

One thing that I believe is very important and yet ignored by many is to learn where the translation actually came from and who did the translating and were included in the translation committees. Was the translation done by a single person or small group? Did they have personal or denominational biases that influenced the words they used in the translation? Was there a large translation committee made up of biblical scholars of multiple denominations, including some outside of Christianity such as those who are Jewish? Or was it a large group of people who all shared the same views (and perhaps were all of the same race or gender)? What was the motive for the translation? Were there any political motives for yet another new translation? Who was the intended audience?

These sorts of questions (and not limited to the above) are worth investigating before deciding on the overall value of a translation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How should we decide what the best Bible version in our native form of English is?

Trust and rely on the Father in heaven to reveal the truth. (whenever the flesh decides something, sorry, it's of no profit, as written in God's Word )

 

[Andrewn]

To start, I used the Parallel Chapter feature on Bible Hub to compare five Genesis 1 texts:

We are blessed, and confused, by the huge number of English translations. I've been comparing Bible translations for decades. Because every person has a different taste and a different level of education, there is no single translation that is suitable for everyone.

One conclusion I'm sure of is that a translation that is good for the OT cannot be good for the NT and Psalms, and vice versa. If you tell me more about your background, for how long you've been reading the Bible, and what you expect from reading the Bible, I may be able to make some recommendations for you to compare on Bible Hub.

In any case, rest assured that all translations are good and edifying. Reading any translation is better than none.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Millions of souls have been saved through the good old KJV with all its shortcomings and faults. Perhaps it may not be the different versions that is the problem. It may be a failure to believe the gospel message that each version contains.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It seems every time people debate about which Bible version is the closest to God's Word they concentrate more on learning Hebrew than actually comparing and contrasting modern English versions to each other. How should we decide what the best Bible version in our native form of English is? This is the question Christians with no knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek or Jewish heritage need to answer.

To start, I used the Parallel Chapter feature on Bible Hub to compare five Genesis 1 texts: NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, and HCSB. (No choice on that list of versions, unfortunately.) The KJV uses a singluar heaven; the other four pluralize it: heavens. Otherwise, 1:1 is identical. But verse 2 is totally different in some versions. So are some later verses in Chapter 1. See here:

Genesis 1 Parallel Chapters

The problem is I don't have the same favorite version for each verse. But I am just a human, a limited thinker who can never understand God completely. If I can understand His Word better by learning about the differences in modern English translations, I am all in to do it.

You may find this thread of interest:

Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

May God bless you today.

 

[GodLovesCats]

We are blessed, and confused, by the huge number of English translations. I've been comparing Bible translations for decades. Because every person has a different taste and a different level of education, there is no single translation that is suitable for everyone.

One conclusion I'm sure of is that a translation that is good for the OT cannot be good for the NT and Psalms, and vice versa.

Why do you believe this?

If you tell me more about your background, for how long you've been reading the Bible, and what you expect from reading the Bible, I may be able to make some recommendations for you to compare on Bible Hub.

I became a Christian at Vineyard Christian Fellowship (an Evangellical/Neo-Charismatic church) in 1997. I had been an atheist before then, believing Joseph was Jesus' father. Shortly after being saved I went to a church kinship (Bible study) meeting. I went there almost every week. At some point I quit going to Bible study meetings and church. In 2011 I moved down to Gainesville, Florida and since then I have not had a church to join. I consider myself non-denominational because no church doctrines perfectly align with all of my beliefs, but if it matters to you, I am believer baptized.

In any case, rest assured that all translations are good and edifying. Reading any translation is better than none.

Obviously, but there is a reason God's Word has been written and told in so many languages.

 

[Andrewn]

I became a Christian at Vineyard Christian Fellowship (an Evangellical/Neo-Charismatic church) in 1997. I had been an atheist before then, believing Joseph was Jesus' father. Shortly after being saved I went to a church kinship (Bible study) meeting. I went there almost every week.

Excellent, you've been a Christian for over 20 years and you have conservative Pentecostal teachings.

It's great that we can compare translations so readily on websites like Bible Hub. You've been comparing NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, and HCSB. These are common translations but I would suggest the following changes:

Instead of HCSB, the newer version which is CSB
Instead of KJV, I'd try KJV 2000.
Instead of NASB, I like the WEB
I'd keep the ESV.
Instead of NIV, I'd try NLT. It is nice in OT but not in NT or psalms.

In 2011 I moved down to Gainesville, Florida and since then I have not had a church to join.

I hope you find a suitable church, soon. You may like the Assemblies of God. Or you may want to try Free Methodists or conservative Lutherans.

Obviously, but there is a reason God's Word has been written and told in so many languages.

Yes, this is why I've been comparing translations and trying to find the perfect "one." There are other translations I like but they're not available on Bible Hub. Please let me know your opinion.

 

[GodLovesCats]

"Conservative" Pentacostal does not fit well with me. I don't believe as strongly as they do about the Holy Spirit gifts (never saw people speak in tongues, for example), but there are other threads about that.

CSB = updated HCBS?

 

[hedrick]

E
Instead of NIV, I'd try NLT. It is nice in OT but not in NT or psalms.

I don't know the others, but the NIV and NLT are rather different. I'm not a fan of NIV, particularly for Paul, but NLT is intended to be thought-for-thought translation, while NIV is intended to be closer to formal equivalent.

 

[Andrewn]

"Conservative" Pentacostal does not fit well with me. I don't believe as strongly as they do about the Holy Spirit gifts (never saw people speak in tongues, for example), but there are other threads about that.

Assemblies of God is not the one for you, then. I guess if you like to discuss difference between denominations you can start another thread.

CSB = updated HCBS?

Yes, the CSB is the recent update of HCSB.

 

[Andrewn]

the NIV and NLT are rather different. I'm not a fan of NIV, particularly for Paul, but NLT is intended to be thought-for-thought translation, while NIV is intended to be closer to formal equivalent.

I'm not a fan of either one in the NT and Psalms. As far as the rest of OT is considered, I've found interesting renderings in NLT that make the meaning really clear. Another thought-for-thought translation that I like in the OT is GWT.

I've never seen any redeeming qualities in NIV. But people liked it for reasons that I never completely understood but I may be able to guess.

What are your favorite translations.

 

[Radagast]

It seems every time people debate about which Bible version is the closest to God's Word they concentrate more on learning Hebrew than actually comparing and contrasting modern English versions to each other.

But you have to do it that way. The best version is the one that's closest to the original Hebrew and Greek.

If you don't personally know Hebrew and Greek, get the version endorsed by your church or denomination.

 

[Radagast]

I don't know the others, but the NIV and NLT are rather different. I'm not a fan of NIV, particularly for Paul, but NLT is intended to be thought-for-thought translation, while NIV is intended to be closer to formal equivalent.

I would only recommend the NLT to people who struggle with reading. It's a very loose translation.

The NIV, on the other hand, is an excellent translation into modern English.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I would only recommend the NLT to people who struggle with reading. It's a very loose translation.

The NIV, on the other hand, is an excellent translation into modern English.

I noticed that. It looks like an attempt to help people with not-so-great reading comprehension.

 

[hedrick]

What are your favorite translations.

NRSV for formal equivalence, Good News or CEB for dynamic equivalence. I'm not happy with the way NRSV did a gender neutral language in a couple of places, but it's generally the most accurate. I'm hoping the next version (which should be out within 5 years) will improve that.

I want to like CEB (Common English). The general level of the translation is good. I've used it with middle school kids. But when I checked Romans it used a few interesting but unusual translations. Some may even be right, but I'd generally prefer a translation to stick with consensus interpretations. Despite the fact that it's a fairly free translation, I have yet to find a place where Good News seems wrong. I trust it more than most "literal" translations. As far as I can tell, it's not getting revised, so eventually Good News will fall behind current scholarship.

I haven't evaluated all the conservative translations. The only formal equivalent translation I have a strong opinion against is NIV. I wouldn't use it for Paul. ESV has the advantage of being based on RSV. (Actually I think I prefer the original, though ESV has more recent textual scholarship.) Holman bothers me. It seems to have been done just because the Southern Baptists wanted to own a translation. However I've never heard anything bad about the translation itself. For a conservative translation I'd probably use ESV for formal equivalence, but there are so many looser translations that I'm not in a position to recommend one.

The New English and the later REB seem to have vanished. It seems like REB's problem was marketing, more than any issue with the translation itself. NEB reminds me of CEB in some ways: it has a number of idiosyncratic renderings which may be right, but aren't consensus. Actually NEB has more of them than CEB. However the REB toned that down. It looks perfectly reasonable. REB also looks like it's never going to be revised, so it's kind of a dead end.

The Jerusalem Bible and the NAB are also pretty good.

 

[Radagast]

ESV has the advantage of being based on RSV, although I'm not sure why you'd want to use an adulterated RSV rather than the original.

Because the ESV corrects errors in the RSV. Otherwise, it's the "Extremely Similar Version."

Holman bothers me. It seems to have been done just because the Southern Baptists wanted to own a translation.

The HCSB (now CSB) sits somewhere in between the ESV/RSV and the NIV in translation approach.

 

[hedrick]

Because the ESV corrects errors in the RSV. Otherwise, it's the "Extremely Similar Version."

A matter of philosophy. I prefer to translate the OT in the context of the original work, and not add a NT perspective to the translation. That's the job of exegesis. That's probably the biggest difference. I also find the way they handle the Gospels irritating. They want to translate words more consistently, so everything starts with "and." That's not English. I find it distracting.

 

[Radagast]

I also find the way they handle the Gospels irritating. They want to translate words more consistently, so everything starts with "and." That's not English.

Can't argue with that.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Assemblies of God is not the one for you, then. I guess if you like to discuss difference between denominations you can start another thread.

I already did that in the Looking For A Church section.