"We don't want the Scriptures to affirm our theological bias. We want the Scriptures to challenge our theological bias and bring us into connection so that we can rightly hear and interpret the Word of the God." Extremely well said, Tim! We need this more than ever with such a vast amount of English translations that are available to us today. It's when we use the Scriptures to affirm our theological bias that keep us divided amongst the Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants. We definitely need to challenge more of these theological bias with the correct interpretation of the Scriptures that we may all be united to Christ.
The NKJV has been my favorite for a long time, but I really like the ESV as well. One translation that kind of surprised me is the NLT, I've been listening to the audio version on my way to work in the morning and it's really good. The important thing to me, is a translation needs to be as faithful to the original text as possible and free from modern political biases.
For what it's worth, if anything, here are my main criteria in choosing a Bible translation. 😊 1. Accuracy. Faithfulness to the original Hebrew and Greek. This is the single most important, though the others are also important but less so. 2. Clarity and naturalness. The sentence "I am the one whom people call John Smith" is clear in that it's understandable by most English speakers, but it doesn't sound natural. It's not how most English speakers speak. The sentence "My name is John Smith" is both clear and natural in that it's both understandable and it's how most English speakers speak. 3. Audience appropriateness. What group(s) is the translation meant to target? Is it appropriate to that group? Can they understand it well? To take one example, the ESV has a higher register than the NLT, whereas the NLT has a lower register. A higher register means a text is translated in a more formal or academic literary style, whereas a lower register means a text is translated in a colloquial or conversational literary style. The average person tends to have more difficulty understanding the ESV than the NLT. As such, a translation that might be appropriate for scholars might not be appropriate for blue collar workers. A translation that might be appropriate for older people might not be appropriate for younger people. A translation that might be appropriate for people in a majority culture might not be appropriate for people in a minority culture. And so on and so forth. 4. Beauty. Some translations are simply more beautiful sounding or euphonic than other translations. That goes for any translation, not only the Bible. Seamus Heaney's Beowulf is more beautifully translated than most other versions of Beowulf. In any case, beauty isn't the most important criterion, but it isn't unimportant either. A memorable turn of phrase may help one better memorize a passage. At the same time, keep in mind what C.S. Lewis wrote: "Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity the transporting or horrifying realities of which the book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame or struck dumb with terror or carried out of ourselves by ravishing throes and adoration. Does the word ‘scourged’ really come home to us like ‘flogged’? Does ‘mocked him’ sting like ‘jeered at him’?" 5. Publisher. Some Bible publishers are doing great work. Some better than others. Such as publishing aesthetically pleasing Bibles. Publishing a variety of different Bibles like reader's Bibles, study Bibles, journaling Bibles. Publishing Bibles in all shapes and sizes. Publishing Bibles at all different price ranges from affordable to premium. Crossway is a great example of a great publisher. It also immensely helps that Crossway publishes all sorts of books, commentaries, atlases, dictionaries, and so on which use the ESV. Similar things could be said about Zondervan and the NIV. Indeed it seems almost every major Christian publisher now has their own translation (which also helps them avoid paying royalties if they use an in-house translation): Crossway has the ESV, Zondervan has the NIV, Holman has the CSB, Tyndale has the NLT, Thomas Nelson has the NKJV, Lockman has the NASB, even John MacArthur and Grace Community Church has the LSB. If one can't decide on a Bible translation based on the previous criteria, it might help to decide on a Bible translation based on which publisher one wants to go with. For instance, someone might like the aesthetics of a particular publisher more than another. 6. Church. What translation does your church use? For better or worse, the days when most churches used a single translation, i.e. the KJV, are over. However, it's still possible to have a single shared translation within a single church community or a group of churches in a local area. A single tgranslation that everyone reads, studies, memorizes, quotes, and in essence that shapes their thinking as the Bible ought to shape. After all, you aren't what you think, but what you think, you are (e.g. Rom 12:2). It's often a huge benefit to be on the same page with most everyone else in your church community in terms a Bible translation. Again, this isn't the most important criterion, but if you're on the fence about a few Bible translations it could prove to be the criterion which pushes you toward one Bible translation over another.
I agree having an NLT to hand helps me get Jonah, Obadiah and unknown to me Old Testament books narrative down. Then I re read in my day to day bible and have a start of a grasp of the word. Liking these longer formats.
Hi Tim, excellent & very informative commentary on different Bible translations. Very interesting. You certainly know your stuff Tim. I always enjoy your Bible review videos. Thank you & God bless you! ✝️✡️💜🙏🏻😊
Great video and great information. The NIV is my translation of choice because it’s what I grew up with. However, I read multiple translations like the NLT, ESV and the LSB. Now, as far as a paraphrase is concerned, I actually recommend The Living Bible for new Bible readers, yes, I know it was done by one person, Kenneth Taylor, but it’s still a great way to introduce someone to the Bible who has never heard it before. So my translation of choice is pick one or two, a dynamic equivalent, like the NIV or NLT, and a formal equivalent, like the NASB or ESV, and read through them, if you find that a dynamic equivalent translation works better for you, then stick with it. But, if you find that you get more out of a formal equivalent translation then go with that one. It’s really not that complicated to pick one translation out of the hundreds of English translations and use it as your daily driver and every day carry.
I am a Catholic but i predominantly use Protestant translations because they are just so good, even with their biases. Even the Catholic Church authorises use of a few Protestant translations like ESV and NLT.
Thank you for your list of recommended and non-recommended. I have put a lot of work into picking my Bibles and our lists compare favorably. Recommended: Legacy Standard Bible, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, RSV, CSB, NRSV, NET. The not recommended is also quite comparable: The Message Bible, The Passion Translation, The Living Bible, The Good News Translation, The Contemporary English Version, and, hold your breath, The Queen James Translation. Thank you for all you do. It's appreciated.
Translations by committee, while allow for accuracy, they can compromise on beauty and the idiosyncratic view of a single translator. Psalm 3 by committee: “You break the teeth of the wicked.” Psalm 3 by Ronald Knox: “Thine to break the fangs of malice.” While not accurate, it can illuminate a new angle on the text. Sometimes it’s nice to have both side by side.
The most important thing to do is go before God in prayer before we sit down with our Bible...pray that God will give you understanding of what you are about you read. Gods Word is meant to be understood by those that belong to Him.
As a Messianic Jew, the NJV is the way to go. Happy to have heard from you it's among the Bibles you recommend. Bonus...I was born in Cuba, speaking Spanish my whole life. So, I recommend NLBA, the Spanish counterpart of the formidable NASB. I am not a native English speaker, and I understand it very well. I wonder why that would be? Greetings from Cuba. Love your channel. May the Father of Yeshúa our Messiah bless you abundantly now and forever!
The NBLA is indeed the best Spanish translation I've come across. Spanish being a descendant of Latin, and Latin being grammatically not that different from Greek, means that literal translation into Spanish works quite well.
The NKJV has the best textual notes among the mainstream translations. The Text-Critical English New Testament by Adam Boyd is a lot more detailed however. I prefer committee translations but I think Adam did an excellent job.
My thoughts are as follows: Let a committee *TRY* to translate the *MEANING* of a passage *IF* they can arrive at a consensus. Otherwise, go for a _word-for-word_ approach.
You raise good points, but I would have thought that enjoyment of the reading experience would have been included. A person is much more likely to read their Bible every day if they enjoy the translation they are reading (and isn't that the whole goal - to get people reading the Bible regularly)?
Thanks for this. I agree with you on the Isaiah passage, either way doesn't take away from the virgin birth of Christ. But, translating it a virgin, does take away from the immediate meaning that the sign was intended for to king Ahaz. For me, no Bible translation completely identify when words have added to the translation. Take for example Psalm 23 and this is just one instance. In the first verse, there are only 4 words in Hebrew yet look how long it is in English. In fact, the entire Psalm is 56 words in Hebrew yet in English (both the ESV and NKJV) have around 112 words. Yet how many of those words does the NKJV actually italicize? Further, I was taught that italics means emphasis, which is ironic because those are tbe words that are being highlighted as not being original, yet from a purely English standpoint, the italics are giving emphasis to those very words. Most important thing for me in choosing a translation, for what it's worth, is faithfulness to the underlining originals, translation footnotes that shows variants and alternatives and readability. I'd take a bible with footnotes only over ones with cross references any day. As much as I like the NKJV, I can't find an edition that is footnotes only and has all the footnotes. By the way, some of the footnotes in the NKJV are now outdated and at present would be incorrect since the NA text had been updated. Furthermore, I'd love to a major translation don't by a committee based on the Majority Text as I believe, in my humble opinion, it to be superior to the Textus Receptus.
Or just read ALL the translations and figure it out. BUT the TLB was done by a committee with Taylor's name as the general editor. It's good for people who need a bit of clarity but not as a full time reader.
I always say that a good paraphrase version is quite a bit more accurate than your average sermon. I think The Message is pretty good in general, obviously some inaccuracies come through and you shouldn't rely on it for study. I like the ESV and CSB because they manage to be accurate enough for study and don't sound clunky when reading, compared to NASB which is technically more accurate but usually at the expense of readability. John 2:4 for example is a verse that is hard to translate to English, it has at least two problems: 1) the use of "woman" as a sign of respect probably more akin to "ma'am", which if translated literally sounds disrespectful in modern English (surprising to me that most leave it in) 2) the phrasing is apparently unclear enough that literally every bible translates it substantially different (literally "what to me and to you, woman" but gets translated a variety of ways). I think the gist of it comes through that Jesus is saying it is not really their concern and that it isn't his time, but there is a lot of variance. So how do you translate word for word when it doesn't make sense in English? I think the CSB might actually have the best translation. You sometimes have to add or subtract words for clarity in translation. The more I study, the more I realize that it's not as simple as "word for word vs paraphrase", because translation is harder than that.
Hey Tim, love your videos, and thanks for your Bible reviews. I'm Catholic and enjoy most the RSV and ESV. I have the Catholic editions of both, but let's be honest- Protestant publishers just make much better quality Bibles! I want to get an RSV or ESV with Apocrypha because I'm Catholic. Now I have read up on the main 66 books and that there are very small differences that are truly insignificant to me personally, but what about any differences in the apocrypha versions vs the Catholic editions for those deuterocanonical books? Can you comment if those are also 99% the same so I can feel pretty solid in my choice here? Thanks!
I’ve read the Douay Rheims and NRSV Apocrypha, so I don’t have a lot of experience. However, I do know that Cambridge has an ESV-CE edition called the Cornerstone that is approved by the Catholic Church in India. Strange I know. Of course Schuyler has a very nice RSV with Apocrypha, but I’ve only read the 66 of that one.
Thanks for the response. Yeah I'm aware of the newer Cambridge ESV-CE but I'm not a fan of Anglicized text and also can't stand the modern font in that one haha@@anickelsworthbiblereviews
I'm a bit unsure about describing the NIV as word for word given its removal of Sheol in the ancient Israelite texts because one of the men in charge didn't like to think that the ancient Israelites could have had a different conception of the afterlife than him.
I didn’t exactly call it a word for word. But it does advertise itself as word for word as possible with a dynamic approach when necessary. I’d say it’s certainly more often dynamic.
Thank you, Tim. As always, your videos are quite informative and helpful. I enjoy many different translations, but the NKJV is my favorite. However, I also greatly enjoy the NLT. Has anyone compiled a list of errors (real or perceived) in the NLT? Since I've heard so many good things about the CSB translation, I recently ordered the new Cambridge CSB Diadem and look forward to reading it from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22 beginning this summer. Although the 66 books of the Bible are not in chronological order, I have found that reading it in a sequential order is both satisfying and edifying. One other thing, I strongly encourage every serious Bible student to have more than one translation. Have a literal translation like the KJV, NKJV, NASB, or ESV, as well as a more dynamic translation like the NIV or NLT. I look forward to learning if the CSB hits that "sweet spot" in the middle!
I would ❤love it❤ if you did a bookshelf tour! (Longer than 5 minutes) I zoom in to see what books are on the shelf behind you, but the titles aren't clear. [The shelf to your left, if you're looking at the TV]. Thanks for your hard work!
BRIEF is I think the point. A little bit more might be preferred. After my husband passed people stood for hours in the book room taking notes, more concerned with our reading material than me.
Reading level I get. What about praying for the Holy Spirit to teach us? Plus easier reading level might be a watered down translation which isn't good either.
My problem with the _NLT_ is that a few times where I *KNEW* what the original Greek said, from a cultural perspective, I would read how the _NLT_ rendered it and just shake my head. IOW, I don;t mind the translators _"doing the heavy lifting"_ in making the meaning plain, but if I *lose trust* in their methodology, then I don't find reading that translation to be as profitable. IOW, if I have to double-check the _NASB_ or the _NKJV_ when I question something, then I'm wasting valuable time in the first place.
I view the NLT more like an inspired commentary. It’s the word of God, but can be over interpreted. So I use it when I need help. It’s never going to be a primary translation for me.
I’m actually reformed and attend a church who fellowships with masters but I’m KJV preferred and would caution it since it’s like a masters seminary work.
@@nbonefish your welcome. I guess I didn’t see a need for it. I don’t personally like alexandrian based texts so that also hurts it. But I feel like it adds nothing that the ESV and NASB doesn’t already do. And Nickels has a good point. I don’t see it over taking NASB or esv since it is basically a theologically John MacArthur based work. Some love him, some really don’t. That will limit its scope. Maybe in a Masters seminary influenced church it could see use and if your church preaches from it then maybe go for it. But otherwise I don’t see it gaining the same kind of traction in the broader evangelical world; outside of the dispensational reformed Baptists.
I wish there was a modern English translation of both the Old and New Testaments that relies primarily on the Septuagint for the OT but didn't include the Apocrypha. There was a translation by a single American translator some time in the late 1700s or early 1800s, but that might be too far back.
The Brenton Septuagint may be what you are referring to. There is also the Lexham English Septuagint, and the NETS, but they contain the apocrypha. You may want to also check out the Orthodox Study Bible. While it is largely the NKJV to defers to the Septuagint where there are differences. Keep it mind it contains the Orthodox Canon (apocrypha) as well.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews The thing is, I think the Septuagint is closer to the original and don't consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture, and I think those are all OT only. Am I wrong?
I think the text we have is the better text, but the Septuagint is useful. I don’t hold the apocrypha to be inspired, but I do read it as a commentary type.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews That's kinda how I see it too. I have the NETS Septuagint which is OT and Apocrypha only, and I've been reading it for my own personal use.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Also, I would disagree with you on "young maiden" versus "virgin" not being a significant difference. Not every young woman is a virgin, and there's nothing especially miraculous about a young woman giving birth because it happens all the time. But it IS miraculous for a virgin to give birth because it's impossible by purely natural means. This is exactly the kind of thing MT critics refer to when they say the text was altered to remove Jesus from Messianic prophecies.
I prefer the nasb 1995 and even the ESV but as a youth pastor i had to.consider my audience so i landed on the CSB becauwe most of youth are middle school
The controversy is that the Hebrew word is the feminine form of the word for "young man," so it would be most natural in all other contexts to translate it as "young woman." However, since Matthew cites it as a passage that is fulfilled in Christ's birth to a virginal young woman, it has traditionally been translated more specifically as "virgin." At the same time, this translation choice eliminates the possibility that the prophecy's original context (a birth serving as a sign during the reign of King Ahaz) necessitates a normal birth (by a young woman who conceived naturally) and not a miraculous one (by a virgin). Isaiah's prophecy emphasizes the child's development, not the details of his birth, as the true prophetic sign: peace will come before the child can reason between right and wrong. When Matthew said that this prophecy was "fulfilled" in Christ's birth, he likely meant that the birth of Immanuel was a type of the birth of Christ, which was made especially clear through the LXX's choice of a Greek word that usually (though not always) meant "virgin" specifically. Matthew's citations often rely on typology, not on a straight interpretation of a passage. (See, for instance, how Matthew affirms that Jesus "fulfills" Hosea's prophecy about Israel itself: "Out of Egypt I have called my son.") So it's reasonable to translate Isaiah's prophecy and Matthew's citation inconsistently.
@@MAMorenoWhat I've often wondered is that since the OT was around prior to the NT, translating it as virgin would be a retranslation in light of the NT. If the OT was a stand alone, without knowledge of the NT (which it actually was), the question is, would it have been translated as virgin or young woman. The same word is translated young woman in Genesis when referring to Rebecca, do what is the problem? At the end of the day, it is as you say, it takes away from the original meaning which was immediate to Isaiah and Ahaz as that particular birth was a sign to King Ahaz. It's the same thing with with the NKJV and NASB who capitalise pronouns for dirty in the messianic Psalms, those it takes away from the immediate meaning of the text and in the New Testament, it makes it seem like the Pharisees acknowledges Jesus and the son of God, when they clearly didn't. That it why I don't like translations that capitalises pronouns for diety as I believe it to be unfaithful to the original people involved.
@@edwardgraham9443 I suspect that the NASB capitalized pronouns because it wanted to distinguish itself from the RSV (which had been accused of theological liberalism) by being especially reverential. That being said, I'm glad that it's not a universal practice, as it does make for awkward reading.
I believe the kjv is probably the most corrupt version. I think that reading the different versions and comparing them with guidance of the Holy Spirit will bring a much better understanding so you can decide for yourself what is the truth. Human looking to human for understanding will eventually lead to deception.
I love the word for word translation. Thats why I love the NKJV. But Have you seen what The Message translation Psalm 82:6 it replace ye are gods too I appoint you as judges rulers interesting tho.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews It's a bias more common in Jewish translations. See, for instance, the various editions of the Jewish Publication Society version: 1917: I said: Ye are godlike beings, And all of you sons of the Most High 1985: I had taken you for divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you 2023: I had taken you for divine beings, attendants of the Most High, all of you The NIV tries to soften the verse by placing "gods" in quotation marks, but the NIrV goes even further. NIrV: I said, ‘You leaders are like gods. You are all children of the Most High God.’ It should be noted, however, that "elohim" is sometimes translated as "judges" in mainstream translations. See Exodus 21.6 for an example, where translations are divided between "judges" (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NET, CSB) and "God" (ASV, RSV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT, ESV, CEB). Oddly enough, the Message agrees with the "God" translation in this case!
On the dynamic equivalent side, you say they are translating with meaning … but doesn’t that really mean interpretation … so we’re getting theological “meaning” … I.e. what they think the passage means!
English = NKJV, ESV Spanish = Reina-Valera TBS (protestant), Biblia de Jerusalén (Roman catholic) French = Bible de Jérusalem (Roman catholic) Greek new testaments = T.R. and Byzantine text by Maurice Robinson Old testament = LXX by Hendrickson Publishers
Passion translation isn’t even a translation- it’s a shame it was even printed- I hope the people do their homework & look the author up on this bc he is NOT right mentally & unstable- he’s even talked about adding another book to John - look him up & do not trust…I’m so glad you mentioned this - & he’s just 1 person that thinks he can rewrite God Word & add/take away from His Word- false teacher if even that
No English translation is entirely perfect. I prefer the translations that are based on the Byzantine group of manuscripts because I think they are the most accurate and complete. My favorites are the MEV and the KJV. The translations which rely on Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus wind up leaving out many words and phrases that are found in the Byzantines. When we see discrepancies between manuscript families and when we consider how manuscripts were copied, logically it seems far more likely for a scribe to accidentally leave words out than for a scribe to accidentally add words. On that basis, the manuscripts which don't have words, phrases, or sentences are probably less accurate than the ones that do have those words, phrases, or sentences. A prominent example is the Johannine Comma. Most modern Bible translations leave it out. But Jerome explicitly mentioned the existence of the Comma and his concern that it was being left off (in his day!) from many of the manuscript copies he was seeing. When we consider that Arianism was probably the majority view in the region of Alexandria in the 4th Century, it seems quite probable that Arian heretics were responsible for alterations which would undercut Trinitarianism, and their greatest area of influence was the region where the oldest surviving copies, like Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, come from. This was also the region with drier climate, which helped preserve them; the higher humidity from greater rainfall in the region north of the Mediterranean would have degraded and eventually ruined their earliest copies. The ancient southern manuscripts exhibit what some see as a pattern of absence of words and phrases which tend to support the deity of Jesus.
Generally agree on translations by committee, though that doesn't always go well. To me, the NRSV is flat and lifeless, and I imagine the ecumenical diversity of the committee had something to do with that. One of those "when everybody's happy, nobody's happy" kind of situations. And that doesn't even get into all the political correctness. But I think that's happily an exception to the rule. After all, the KJV was done by committee, and it remains a literary masterpiece. Thanks for the video!
I don’t think it would be wise to follow a Catholic or Mormon on the translation committee or a Jew for the New Testament. Why would you want people whose beliefs conflict with the Word of God as you believe it eg. evangelical conservative making translation choices?
The Textus Receptus line is inferior to the Septuagint/ancient Hebrew and Greek line of the original Vulgate. All the protestant translations blindly follow the TR/Masoretic line. Too bad.
I have a translation for you if you want it for your collection. It’s the Joseph Smith translation that the RLDS made that incorporates it into the text and not separately as the LDS do
@Sirach144 I grew up in the LDS religion 12:40 and have, or had a JST. I neither want or need a version that incorporates a prophesy about the coming of Joseph Smith in Genesis. It was highly presumptive, and bordering on blasphemous. I love my LDS family members and friends, but not their religious beliefs. Beyond that my preference is more towards word for word. I trust the Old King James version. I use the NKJV as well, for study. For sheer readability, I like the. CSB. I am not a big fan of most denominational Study bibles, but like cultural background ones, or archeological ones. My Church has a study package, and I reference that one.
