CHOOSING A BIBLE



                    From the Christian Research Institute



There are several questions one should examine in selecting a version of the 

Bible to use or give away.  Here are a few of them: 



1) How do I intend to use it?



For deeper study, fast reading, devotional reading or some combination?  A 

version for broader reading and certain memory work should be in a vocabulary 

and style you are comfortable with and understand easily.  Using at least two 

translations (one for study, one for other purposes) brings best growth and 

understanding for most people.  The study Bible should be more literal to the 

details and actual form of the original, perhaps with notes and cross

references.  Consulting it and a freer translation together is a helpful 

method.  This is because either type translation can lead to a wrong 

understanding of the meaning of the original. Here is how.



Any Bible version should be tested by the question "Is it faithful to the 

original text?"  However, the question of fidelity can be divided into two 

parts - transfer of the meaning and of the dynamics of the original. 

Experienced translators John Beekman and John Callow in their classic work, 

Translating the Word of God, explain that when a translation transfers the 

MEANING it "conveys to the reader or hearer the information that the original 

conveyed to its readers or hearers."  When a translation conveys the DYNAMIC 

force of the original, it "makes a natural use of the linguistic structures 

of the RL (language of the translation) and...the recipients of the 

translation understand the message with ease." (pages 33, 44) 



This does not mean there will be no ambiguous or puzzling statements at all. 

It does not mean that difficulty in understanding HOW something is true or 

how to APPLY it will be removed.  The original readers had these problems as 

well.  Translations that seek to maintain the meaning closer to the word 

level have more difficulty in capturing the dynamic force of the original or 

in using the natural expression of English (which, of course differs with 

time and locale, especially U.S. to Great Britain). Translations toward the 

idiomatic or paraphrase side do better with the dynamics, as a rule, but 

diminish the readers' ability to know "that's the way THEY said it (in Greek 

or Hebrew)," or follow the nuances of the original writers.



Special care should be taken in use of Bible versions on either extreme. 

Literal translations can mislead if one is unaware of the significance of 

elements of form (grammar, style) or idiom (unique expression) that are more 

like the original than English.  Freer translations introduce more 

interpretation (although all translation demands interpretation) and 

sacrifice precision and consistency of renderings. 



2) What was the goal of the translator(s)?



To reach a specific audience?  To communicate particularly the force and 

impact of the original like J.B. Phillips, or to be clear and vivid like Ken 

Taylor?  Often the preface will give this and other helpful information. 



3) Who did the translating?



One man, a committee, or one man with a committee checking?  A committee 

translation is generally freer of biased theological interpretations that can 

corrupt a translation but it will usually sacrifice some in consistency and 

artistic, stylistic expression. 



4) What are the credentials and background of the translator(s)?



Did he (they) have expertise in the appropriate language(s)?  If done by a 

committee, were they from the same denomination, similar ones, or widely 

differing ones?



One does not have to have complete answers to all of these questions before 

using a Bible version.  In fact, some of the less dependable ones can have 

positive uses if one is aware of their deficiencies.  The subject of Bible 

translation is a complex one and the previous questions far from exhaust all 

the considerations.  The following brief summaries evaluating specific 

versions are very cursory, and not meant to be authoritative.  The were 

produced by a comparison and combination of the remarks of a number of 

evangelical scholars, and in some cases, the personal observations of the 

author.





KING JAMES (AUTHORIZED) VERSION (1611)



Translated from the original languages by committee.  Unexcelled in literary 

quality, although now archaic.  Does not reflect the best text base on recent 

scholarship (some editions give explanatory notes on the text).





NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1970)



From the original by interdenominational committee.  Patterned after American 

Standard Version of 1901.  Excellent precision in handling of verb-tenses but 

sometimes pedantic, awkward and lacking in style - "wooden" say many.  

Literalness, careful work and good notes make it one of the best study Bibles.



THE MODERN LANGUAGE BIBLE (1969)



Revision of the Berkeley Version (1945).  Good balance of accuracy of meaning 

with plain contemporary English. Helpful notes.





JERUSALEM BIBLE



Translated with reference to both the original and an earlier French 

translation by Roman Catholic committee.  Forceful but not stylistically 

consistent or fully idiomatic English.  OT text not the best. Notes are a 

substantial part of the work and are generally non-sectarian but should be 

checked.





NEW AMERICAN BIBLE



From the original Greek (NT); revision of confraternity version (based on 

Latin Vulgate) in the OT.  Catholic Committee consulted with Protestants in 

final stages. More conservative than JB but introductions to sections and to 

individual books "moderately liberal in tone" (Kubo and Specht, p. 164). 

Format differs with the publisher.





NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV)



From the original, by a large interdenominational but conservative committee. 

Well balanced - good for study, faster reading, or public reading. Based on 

reliable Greek text.  Somewhat inconsistent in modernizing terminology. 

Pleasing, very readable format (few footnotes).  Many feel it will become the 

most used Bible of the future, especially for evangelicals.





TODAY'S ENGLISH VERSION (Good News Bible)



From the original.  NT by one man, approved by committee.  Aimed particularly 

at English - as - second - language audience and those with little formal 

education.  Achieves its goal well - very readable, good format. Translates 

dynamics well but not dependable for deeper study if used by itself.





NEW ENGLISH BIBLE



From the original by interdenominational British committee.  Exciting 

literary style, very readable but with distinct British flavor and idiom.  

Excellent for non-churched.  Departures from the original text and too 

much liberty in certain renderings make it undependable as a study Bible.





REVISED STANDARD VERSION (1946)



Debatable whether more a revision of KJV or a fresh translation from the 

original (by committee).  Probably more the latter in NT.  Preserves some of 

KJV sound of "Bible English", but is somewhat modernized.  Accused by 

ultra-conservatives of deliberate "liberal" bias (along with TEV and others) 

but has weathered the storm and is considered by some church leaders as the 

best all-purpose translation.  Adequate, though not the best for deeper study 

in author's opinion.





J.B. PHILLIPS' TRANSLATION



From the original but definitely a paraphrase by J.B. Phillips, a competent 

Greek scholar.  More than any other, makes the Bible "live" for educated or 

literary people, although in British expression.  Does not read like a 

translation.  Provokes new insight and understanding which should, however, be 

checked with more literal translations and by deeper study.  Excellent for the 

educated, unchurched person as well as the thinking Christian.





LIVING BIBLE



Paraphrased essentially from the 1901 ASV by Ken Taylor but checked by Greek, 

Hebrew scholars.  Serves similar purpose as Phillips' but reaches also to the 

less educated.  Encourages Bible reading and helps older Christians express 

their faith in contemporary terms.  Definitely not to be relied on for 

interpretations or study. Changes, sometimes significant, made between 

editions.





AMPLIFIED BIBLE



Amplified Bible done from the originals.  Neither a true translation nor a 

paraphrase.  This type version offers readers possible renderings or 

interpretations and can be helpful for study or deepening understanding.  

However, users must realize the original author had one meaning in mind, 

determined by context and usage in that language, not our personal 

preference or whim.  These versions must not be substituted for responsible 

deeper study.





**** The following is an attempt to convey a chart from this article you are 

reading.  It looks a bit like a list, but the idea is to list the different 

translations in the order of from the most literal to the least literal (or 

paraphrase).





--Word for Word

  -American Standard

  -King James



--Literal

  -New American Standard 

  -New International Version (NIV)

  -Today's English Version



--Idiomatic

  -New English Version

  -Phillips'



--Paraphrase

  -Living Bible





SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR FURTHER STUDY

--Bruce, F.F., THE ENGLISH BIBLE. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

--Dennett, Herbert, A GUIDE TO MODERN VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Chicago:

  Moody Press, 1965.

--Hawthorne, G.F., HOW TO CHOOSE A BIBLE. Christianity Today, Vol. 20,

  December 5, 1975, pp.7-10.

--Kubo, Sakae and Walter Specht, SO MANY VERSIONS?. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

  1975 (Paperback).

--WHICH BIBLE IS BEST FOR YOU?, Eternity. Vol. 25, April, 1974, pp.27-31.



Contributed by The Manna System



Provided by:



Bible Bulletin Board

internet: www.biblebb.com

modem: 609-324-9187

Box 318			

Columbus, NJ 08022	

....online since 1986

Sysop/Webmaster: Tony Capoccia