The Bible has been translated from its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into more languages than any other book in the world. Below I've written a few paragraphs about some of the more popular English translations... as well as the ones you're most likely to see in bulk at a second-hand book stall.
Hebrew, Aramaic and New Testament Greek do not only contain different words to English, they employ different writing structures, have many words that aren't represented in English, and have different ways of emphasising subjects and themes, utilising literary devises that just don't translate into English. For example, when Paul wrote to the Ephesians, he had one sentance in there (1:3-14) that takes over a minute to read out loud. One sentance. That may work in the Greek language structure, but in English, we're used to a few places to stop and take a breath. Add to that the cultural differences two thousand years ago (when e.g., being 'stoned' meant something entirely different) and you'll see that no English translation will be able to communicate to us in exactly the same way it communicated to the original readers.
For that reason, when choosing a Bible translation, we have to consider what purpose the translators had in mind when translating (e.g., was it intended to be read by children, or to be read aloud, or was it intended for serious theological study?) and match it to our own needs; and when reading, we must seek to understand the original context in order to apply it today.
Some translations adopt a method of translating where a passage is read and understood in the original language, and then the whole passage is restated in English, sometimes cultural references are updated along the way to aid the modern reader as well (e.g., The Message). This described as 'thought-for-thought' translation, and produces text that easily communicates the basic idea of the original passage, but is severely limited in its ability to communicate all the subtle themes and wider meanings of the original. The opposite approach is to essentially keep to the structure of each Greek statement, and where possible translate word for word (e.g. The ESV). This makes it harder to produce free-flowing text that is easy to read, but is much better for serious study and fuller understanding.
There is no one perfect translation, I suggest that using a few different translations for different purposes is the best way to go.
(The below are listed in chronological order.)
To compare some of the translations here with others, visit BibleGateway.com and use their search feature with different translation.
The King James Version was a breakthrough, there's no doubt about it. It was translated four centuries ago, and was the product of the professors of Hebrew and Greek at both Cambridge and Oxford at the time, and was translated under the supervision and intense interest of King James I of England.
It was first published in 1611, and since then it has undergone many revisions, eventually being "thoroughly revised and updated" and renamed the 'American Standard Version' of 1901, which in turn was revised, updated and renamed 'the Revised Standard Version' of 1952 and again updated and renamed the 'New Revised Standard Version' of 1990.
The (original) KJV uses archaic English (thous and thees and forasmuchs etc), and as such can be pretty hard to read for us today. Nevertheless, many people are very fond of it after having grown up with it when it was the only readily available version. It is also out of copyright, so you may find that most 'free' bibles given out in software libraries, on the internet and in hotel drawers are KJV.
A revision of the American Standard Bible of 1901 (which in turn was a revision of the King James Bible of 1611 - see above) that reduces the use of archaic English, but more importantly used better scholarship and more reliable manuscripts to produce a more accurate translation than was previously possible. The English is easily readable (with a distinctly British feel), although a few thees and thys etc. remain.
Rather than offer another revision of the KJV family (KJV, ASV, RSV), the NEB was translated from scratch in an effort to get the best translation from the original to the contemporary English, without constant suggestions from previous versions. The translators also took the approach of explaining cultural and linguistic terms in the text of the translation. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:13 literally reads: "...Those who sleep..." whereas the NEB renders this as "...Those who sleep in death...". It is what the passage means, but words have been added to aid meaning.
One influential reviewer of the NT section of the NEB surmised: "If one's sole concern is what the New Testament writers mean, it [the new version] is excellent. It is otherwise if one wants to find out what the documents actually say."1
Personally I would prefer to be able to clearly see what the original text was and consult dictionaries or commentaries to help with anything I'm unsure of - it's probably best to have no doubt as to what is the word of God and what is the word of man!
The Revised English Bible (REB) came along a bit later as a major revision of the NEB , and introduced almost four hundred alterations and corrections, most of which are stylistic.
The Good News Translation sought to provide the Bible in English to those who spoke English as a second language. The result was an easy-to-read text, almost child-like in its vocabulary. Along with the easy lqnguage, the translators explained customs and aspects of culture not widely known today in the text (e.g., "anointed my head with oil" [Ps. 23:5] becomes "welcomed me as an honored guest"). This has also become a common children's Bible (it was the first Bible I received), and it is okay for light reading by adults, but (IMHO) not approrpiate for serious study (and it doesn't claim to be).
The NIV was the result of a desire to create an international translation, that was neither American nor English focused, that drew from translators of many denominations and nationalities.
The text layout is easy to read and the use of poetic structure is frequent and effective. Where the translators thought that certain words were meant in a different sense from the obvious, quotation marks were used around the words (for example, "gods" and "lords" in 1 Corinthians 8:5).
The NIV receives a lot of criticism for inexplicable choices made in the translation: -
Regardless of its faults, the NIV has been widely accepted as the standard translation for use in church, personal Bible reading and personal Bible Study (for those who can afford it at any rate.) Personally, I formed strong opinions about the NIV when I began to prepare this site: the copyright on the NIV (owned by Zondervan / Rupert Murdoch) is so stringent that I couldn't quote it as I desired, and frankly began to resent heavy restrictions on using God's word. Ultimately, the copyright issues, along with the constant stream of criticisms for inexplicable translating choices, and the approach taken to translating leads me to conclude that it's still a good translation, but could not be the best;and it's a shame that it's the default translation for a lot of people
Bruce M. Metzger is perhaps the most respected commentator on English Translations of the Bible, and sums up his analysis of the NIV with, "The New International Version is more colloquial than the Revised Standard Version, less free than the New English Bible and more literary than the Good News Bible"2... I think he's saying that it's a bit of a compromise translation: middle of the road, good for anything... but not the best at any one thing.
With the finding of better manuscripts on which to base the translation, it was decided to thoroughly revise the RSV to produce the NRSV. The new revised version was to have improved accuracy, clarity and layout, and to remove remaining archaisms. Where the text legitimately allowed, non-necessary masculine-oriented language was also removed. You begin to see the importance of these updates with the following examples: -
The translators also took the opportunity to remove any ambiguity resulting from reading the text out loud. For example, in Genesis 35:7, the RSV reads "because there God had revealed himself". When read aloud, this could be misunderstood as "because their God had revealed himself". The NRSV, removes the ambiguity with "because it was there that God had revealed himself".
The version was released in 1990, with a subsequent version released with British / commonwealth spelling and punctuation in 1995.
The Message was translated by an American academic named Eugene Peterson. He did so out of desire to "bring alive" the words of the New Testament to readers who don't understand the original Greek, especially new Christians but also mature believers who had read the Bible so many times that it had become too familiar. He succeeded spectacularly in the latter category with me - reading Peterson's translation of Galatians brought Paul's words alive to me that first time I read it, even though I'd read the NIV version probably 5-6 times previously.
The Message is a non-literal translation - that is, the content of a passage in the original Greek was read and understood by Peterson, then he put that content into his own words in English and moved onto the next passage, and continued on...and on... The result is a very well-flowing, easy to read and understand translation.
A necessary downfall of The Message, is that it uses a great deal of (North) American colloquial language and slang which may be off-putting to the international reader; however, most American colloquial expressions have found their way around the world anyway so we'd probably understand most of them.
Since The Message was a solo project by Peterson, he was careful to involve many other Biblical scholars in criticising (and approving) his work, comparing it with the original manuscripts in order to produce an authoritative translation.
While reading The Message with this review in mind, I became convinced that the most accurate way to describe this translation is to say that in many ways it is a modern American equivalent of J.B. Phillips' (British-oriented) translation of the New Testament from the 1940's (of which I am a huge fan); and therefore I would suggest this translation to any new Christians, or to any Christians to read during their devotions. However, due to the very non-literal nature of the translation I would not recommend this for Bible Study - the more literal translations are better for in-depth study as a great deal more emphasis may be placed on detail, and less will be placed on structure and flow.
The CEV was initially intended to be a children's Bible, even easier to read than the GNB. Since more people hear the Bible read aloud than read it themselves (especially children), extra attention was paid to how the words would sound when read aloud, and theological terms were replaced by other expressions relevant to the context. The following is a quote from the preface: "The Contemporary English Version differs from all other English Bibles - past and present - in that it takes into consideration the needs of the hearer, as well as those of the reader, who may not be familiar with traditional biblical language". The CEV seems to be finding acceptance as a children's Bible.
Before I heard about the ESV's release, I remember thinking to myself: "I wish that there was a translation of the Bible that had used the usual respected NT Greek translators, but also employed some gifted Christian writers and poets fluent in NT Greek translation, to allow the best of translation as well as readability." At the time I was reading a book by Max Lucado and had him in mind as an example a gifted 'wordsmith'.
Well, it wasn't long afterward that the ESV was released, and it seems that they took exactly this approach. Those involved in transaltion are amongst the most internationally respected names in translation as well as writing and preaching. (I include a partial list below.)
The English Standard Version is the latest in the stream of translations that began with Tyndale's New Testament of 1526 and the the King James of 1611 (followed by the ASV and RSV - see KJV above). It is an 'essentially' literal translation, which means that the translators sought as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer, and represent them faithfully in English.
Attempts at this previously have resulted in stilted and jumpy sentences, but the ESV has largely avoided these (in my opinion). The other common (and expected) result of literal translations is the use of complex theological terms. These may send you to the dictionary (or the Bible Study notes) more often than normal, but if approached diligently can only aid in understanding.
Looking at the scholars involved in the translation of the ESV I noted a number of well-known and respected names, including Wayne Grudem (U.S.), Phillip Jensen (Australian), Max Lucado (U.S.), Leon Morris (Australian), and J.I. Packer (U.K. / Canada). And as the nationalities of even this non-representative group suggests, the translation team was made up of scholars from around the world.
The ESV seems to be a solid translation, well-suited to Bible study and memorisation, good for serious devotions (where detailed meaning is sought) and adequate for light devotions (where ease-of-reading becomes more important).
The ESV is my translation of choice and I hope will come to replace the NIV as the standard English Translation for general use.
Below, find John 20:19 as translated by the above translations. I chose this verse as it seemed to be one of the hardest to translate accurately into smooth-flowing English (so, as fractured as some of the sentences are below, this is as bad as it gets!)
Below, find John 3:16-17 as translated by the above translations.
The prefaces of the CEV, NEB (revised), NIV, NRSV, RSV and ESV were used to gather information here. All external criticisms cited from B. M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation, Baker Academic Press, 2001
1 Author unkown, in the Times Literary Supplement, 24 March 1961, p.178, cited by B. M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation, Baker Academic Press, 2001, p.134. (jump back to text)
2 ibid., p.141. (jump back to text)