Various Translations of the Bible
Introduction (top)
The Bible has been translated from its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into more languages than any other book in the world. This page will deal only with the English versions most used these days, seeking to help people choose a Bible for their own use.
I have decided on this page to list only those Bibles that I would recommend others read (and that I know of). I was tempted to also list those texts I would recommend people steer clear of, but decided against this, as it may offend, and it would also give these unhelpful translations undue publicity. There are many other translations which come in-between these two broad categories (or maybe I haven't heard of them), but I felt it simply best to only list those I was sure were good translations.
(The below are listed in chronological order.)
Mainstream Bibles
To compare some of the translations here with others, visit BibleGateway.com and use their search feature with different translation.
KJV - King James Bible (1611) (top)
Translated four centuries ago, this major version 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, being first published in 1611. Since then it has undergone many revisions, eventually being "thoroughly revised and updated" into the American Standard Version of 1901, which in turn produced the Revised Standard Version of 1952, eventually leading to the New Revised Standard Version of 1990. The KJV uses archaic English (thous and thees and forasmuchs etc), and as such can be pretty hard to read. Nevertheless, many people are very fond of it after having grown up with it when it was the only readily available version.
RSV - Revised Standard Version (1952) (top)
A revision of the American Standard Bible of 1901 (which in turn was a revision of the King James Bible of 1611) that reduces the use of archaic English, and used more ancient manuscripts to produce a more accurate translation than was previously possible. The English is easily readable, although a few thees and thys etc. remain.
NEB - New English Bible (1970) (top)
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. Also the translation inserted words (to aid in understanding) that were not present in the original. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:13 literally reads: "...Those who sleep..." (referring to those who have died), whereas the NEB renders this as "...Those who sleep in death...". So meaning is not added, just clarified.
The principal 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."
Personally I would prefer to be able to clearly see what the original writers wrote, then if I am unsure consult a range of sources to see the possible interpretations; it is better I think, to know which parts of the Bible are meant to be there are which aren't.
The Revised English Bible (REB) published in 1970 as a major revision of the NEB introduced almost four hundred alterations and corrections, most of which are stylistic. Obviously, being the New English Bible, there is a distinct British slant in the phraseology.
GNB - Good News Bible (Today's English Version) (1976) (top)
This translation (with the NT section released in 1966) sought to provide the Bible in English to those who had acquired English as a second language. The result was an easy-to-read text almost child-like in its vocabulary. Also, customs and aspects of cultures not widely known today are replaced with an explaining statement (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).
NIV - New International Version (1978) (top)
Using translators from 13 different denominations of the Christian Church, originating from the United States (vast majority), Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the New International version sought to have an interdenominational and international character. Emphasis was also placed on each of the translators' complete trust in the inerrancy of scripture, and its full authority.
The text layout is easy to read (the best I've seen) 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).
It seems also that a limited amount of words not found in the original manuscripts were added in certain places (e.g., in Jeremiah 7:22, the word "just" has been added without any textual reason); similarly, words found in the original were omitted in the translation (e.g., in Matthew 5:2, originals read: "Jesus opened his mouth and...", whereas the NIV omits "opened his mouth and").
There are also various inconsistencies with the time format as it differs from the gospels to Acts: the gospels use the greek format ("the third hour [Matt. 20:3, Mk. 15:25], the sixth hour etc.) but Acts uses a modern format ("three in the afternoon" [Acts 3:1] etc.).
Metzger 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". Regardless of its faults, the NIV has rapidly moved to a place of widespread acceptance and enjoys the position of assumed translation in many areas of the world (well, those that can afford to be picky at any rate).
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version (1990) (top)
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 was to remove remaining archaisms and masculine-oriented language (the latter where the text legitimately allowed). The version was released in 1990, then an Anglican version was released in 1995 with British spelling.
This translation seems similar or better than the NIV in 'readability', however, the insistence upon gender-neutral language has led to often confusing passages and loss of meaning.
The Message (1993) (top)
The Message was translated by 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 and others who had read the Bible so many times that it had become too familiar.
It 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. The result is a very well-flowing, easy to read and understand translation. 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.
Since The Message was translated only by Peterson, many other Biblical scholars were asked to read through his efforts, comparing with the original manuscripts as they went in order to be in a position to produce an authoritative collection.
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' classic (British-oriented) translation of the New Testament; and therefore I would suggest this translation to any new Christians, or to any Christians to read during their devotions. However, due to the paraphraistic (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.
CEV - Contemporary English Version (1995) (top)
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. 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".
NIRV - New International Reader's Version (1996) (top)
In 1992 the International Bible Society voted to begin a translation aimed at third or fourth graders to be used as a stepping stone to the NIV. The NIRV is the result.
ESV - English Standard Version (2001) (top)
The English Standard Version is the latest in the stream of translations stemming from Tyndale's New Testament of 1526, through the King James of 1611, the American Standard Version of 1901 and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971. The ESV is an 'essentially' literal translation, seeking as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer.
Translations that emphasise their literalness are often stilted and hard to read as a result of attempting to force the structure of a NT Greek sentence into contemporary English (or other languages). However, while there are obvious instances of 'interestingly structured sentences', the ESV is nevertheless quite easy to read although it will have a higher reading level as it includes relatively complex theological terms where they were judged to represent the original Greek with greater accuracy.
Looking at the scholars involved in the translation of the ESV I noted a number of well-known and respected names, including Wayne Grudem, Phillip Jensen, Max Lucado, Leon Morris, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul; and as the respective backgrounds of even this non-representative group suggests, the translation team was made up of scholars from around the world.
In conclusion, 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 prefaces of the CEV, NEB (revised), NIV, NRSV and RSV were used to gather information here. All external criticisms cited from B. M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation, Baker Academic Press, 2001
| 
