What Bible Translation to use?

There can be lot of controversy, legalism, confusion & misunderstanding about this important topic.

In our preaching we use mostly NKJV, Amp, ESV, NLT, NIV.

Please see below a blog from Ps Mark Driscoll:

(It is not that I would agree with him on everything, but he brings it across quite well)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju4dTXz5K74

If want to know more background & don't mind a bit of reading 5-10 min I posted 3 different articles:

1) The haters: The KJV only movement

2) Why are the newer translations of the Bible "missing" verses?

3) What are the most accurate translations of the Bible?

1) The Haters: The KJV Only Movement

Thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not “hating” on us as frequently as they used to. I don't know if this is due to the movement dying out or due to its advocates becoming more civil (highly unlikely), but I am thankful that we do not have to deal with KJV Onlyism as much as we used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that English speakers are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ.

What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. But, they couldn't just admit, "I'm an old fuddy-duddy and don't want to change," so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians.

While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in AD 1611. Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. And, we can't have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. From their writings, it appears advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and NKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB, etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators.

Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't make any sense to me. Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armour and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and ESV, the translation methodology is not dissimilar from what the KJV translators employed. Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives.

KJV Onlyism is a good example of Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he was labelled a heretic by some for daring to “change” the Bible. Centuries later, when Jerome's Latin Vulgate became nearly universally accepted in the Western church, many who dared to attempt updates were murdered. Then, when believers in Germany, England, and other countries began translating the Bible into their common languages, they were labelled heretics, and some were burned at the stake for their vulgarity. KJV Onlyism makes the exact same mistake. Instead of focusing their loyalties on the original Hebrew and Greek, they make their preferred translation of the Bible the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference. There are movements similar to KJV Onlyism in other languages as well, although, thankfully, not with nearly the same followings.

Don't be deceived by KJV Onlyism. God did not re-inspire the Bible in AD 1611. The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous. The KJV Onlyites can bemoan all they want, but their concupiscence for disputation is verily brutish.

2) Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples of missing verses and passages are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Another example is Mark 16:9–20, although that passage is always placed in the text or in footnotes. In addition to the few missing verses, there are numerous words and phrases that are missing from newer translations. Why do these translations omit these verses, phrases, and words? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, as some claim?

No, the newer translations are not removing verses from the Bible. Rather, the newer translations are attempting to accurately present what the biblical writers originally wrote, and that means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. Any content “missing” in newer translations is believed by most scholars to not have been in the Bible to begin with.

The KJV was translated in AD 1611; the New Testament translators of the KJV used a Greek manuscript called the Textus Receptus. Since that time, many biblical manuscripts have been discovered that predate the Textus Receptus, and these older manuscripts, in theory, are likely to be more accurate. In their research, Bible scholars and textual critics have discovered some differences between the Textus Receptus and the older manuscripts. It seems that, over the course of 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, either intentionally or accidentally. The “missing verses” mentioned above are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in brackets because the translators believe they do not truly belong in the Bible.

For example, John 5:4 is included in the KJV, but in the NKJV the verse has a footnote attached explaining that it is not found in many Greek texts; the NASB includes the verse in brackets; the NIV places the verse in a footnote, so John 5:4 is “missing” in the actual text. The disputed portion is this: “waiting for the moving of the waters; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted” (John 5:3–4, NASB).

Here is a possible explanation of how John 5:4 ended up in the Bible: a scribe is writing out John 5, in which Jesus visits the pool of Bethesda: “Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years” (John 5:3–5). But then the scribe gets to verse 7, as Jesus speaks to the man about his desire to be healed, and the man says, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred” (verse 7). The scribe considers the man’s reference to “stirred” water as a source of possible confusion, as John does not expound on it. So the scribe writes a quick note in the margin to explain why the invalid was waiting for “stirred” water—an angel came down at certain times to make something special happen. The scribe’s notation was an attempt to aid the reader in understanding Scripture. But then, as more and more copies of that manuscript were made, the scribe’s marginal note was transferred from the margin and inserted into the actual text as part of the passage. It may be that the later copyist misconstrued the intention of the marginal note: instead of being a commentary of sorts, the note was seen as the scribe’s attempt to correct a mistake, inserting a verse he had accidentally left out. Thus, what the scribe meant as a helpful gloss resulted in John 5 expanding by one verse.

It is important to remember that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death and resurrection; Christ’s being the only way of salvation; and the doctrines of heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These doctrines are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations. It is not a matter of the newer translations missing verses, and it is not a matter of the KJV translators adding to the Bible. It is a matter of determining, through careful research and textual science, what content was most likely part of the original manuscripts of the Bible.

3) What is the most accurate Bible translation?

Choosing the most accurate translation is difficult because it is somewhat like asking, “What is the best brand of truck?” It depends on what you plan to do with it and what criteria you are using to evaluate it. Each translation of the Bible follows certain translation principles that will affect the final work. Some translations try to be “literal,” aiming for an exact, word-for-word correspondence as much as possible. Others try to be “dynamic,” or “thought-for-thought,” providing the overall meaning of the text in modern language, not necessarily providing word-for-word correspondence. One translation might be better for study, and another might be better for public reading. Someone reading on a fifth-grade level might prefer a translation different from what a college student is reading.

Translation is not an exact science. There is often no perfect one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages. Additionally, every language has idioms and figures of speech—notoriously hard to translate—as well as historical and cultural factors that may affect the connotation of words in ways that cannot be translated.

An example in English will help illustrate. If you have a friend who is involved in a live theatre production, and you want to wish her well, you might say, “Break a leg,” an idiom that, in the theater world, replaces saying, “Good luck” (which is considered bad luck to say). If you translate the idiom literally, the readers may get the wrong impression if they do not understand the cultural hijinks behind the phrase. In this case, translating break a leg as “good luck” might be better. A third option might be to leave the expression intact but include an explanatory footnote about what is actually meant.

As our example shows, the most literal translation may not be the most accurate. The more a translation tries to express the original meaning in contemporary language, the more subjective interpretation is introduced. Further, readability can become an issue. A very accurate “literal” translation would be very unreadable. An Interlinear New Testament gives the Greek text on one line and, under it, the approximate English word for each Greek word. If you simply read the English words, you are left, in most cases, with a confusing jumble of words. It is very literal but practically meaningless. As the translation becomes more readable in English, it will become less literal.

Most translations are on a continuum between being “literal” (staying as close to the original words and literary structure as possible) and “dynamic” (communicating the meaning of the passage in a way that the modern reader will understand, even if extra words are introduced that are not in the original text). There are dozens of English translations to choose from. The best ones are done by teams of competent evangelical scholars and reviewed by others. No single individual has all the skills necessary today to produce a good translation. Below are some of the most prominent and best translations:

The King James Version is the most important book in the English language, having shaped the way English was spoken for hundreds of years. Many people grew up with the King James Version and still love the style and beauty of the translation. Someone once quipped, “The King James Version is as beautiful as Shakespeare and just as simple.” For some people, the Elizabethan English might be a challenge, but there is nothing wrong with accepting a challenge. The New King James Version is a more readable version of the King James, removing many of the archaic terms and modernizing the syntax. Both the KJV and the NKJV are “literal” translations.

The New American Standard Bible stays as close as possible to the literal reading of the original text, preserving the literary structure, while still being readable in English. The NASB was very popular with serious Bible students for 20–30 years, from the 1980s to the early 2000s. However, some felt that it was difficult to read, especially for more casual or beginning readers who were not interested in “studying” the Bible. The English Standard Version has since filled the place of the NASB as a “literal” but readable translation. It seems to have replaced the NASB for many who prefer a translation on the “literal” end of the continuum.

The New International Version is a “dynamic” translation. The translators’ concern was communicating the meaning in a way that is easily readable in English, even if it meant a departure from the original wording. The NIV has been very successful and is currently the most popular modern English version. The New Living Translation is by far the most “dynamic” of the most popular modern translations. When first released, the NLT sold very well, and for a time it looked as though it might overtake the NIV as the most popular dynamic translation. In recent years the NLT has faded while the NIV’s sales remain strong.

The New English Translation or NET Bible is an internet-based version, although it is also available in book form. The NET contains extensive notes on the translation. While other modern versions may undergo a major revision every decade or so, the NET Bible is continually updated and revised as needed.

For rapid reading of the text, a more dynamic translation such as the NLT or the NIV might be helpful. For more precise study, a more literal version such as the NASB, ESV, or NET would be preferable. When studying a passage, a good practice is to read it in several versions, both literal and dynamic. If there are places where the various translations seem to go in different directions, then more study is necessary to determine what issues of translation and interpretation are in play. Of course, consulting the original languages would be advantageous at that point, but for those who are not able to do so, the NET Bible and critical commentaries are a good option. Good commentaries will not simply tell the reader what the text means but explain the evidence for the various options and why the one chosen by the commentator is best. One should avoid interpretations or points of doctrine that are based on a single translation of a single word or phrase. One must also resist the tendency to “shop” for a translation that supports his preferred interpretation of a passage.

The Message by Eugene Peterson and The Living Bible by Kenneth Taylor are rather free renderings of the original text as the authors understood it. The MSG and the TLB are the works of individuals, not committees, so there is far more room for error and personal bias. They are closer to personal paraphrases than to translations. Anyone who is reading either one of these would do well to keep in mind that the words express what a single man understood the text to mean. We recommend choosing one of the other translations, above, for one’s primary Bible.

The New Revised Standard Version is the most popular version among non-evangelical Bible scholars. Evangelicals tend to stay away from this translation, as the translation team included many who were not committed to the authority of the biblical text. However, they were competent scholars in the biblical languages.

In the final analysis, the choice of the “most accurate” translation will be a subjective decision. For study, we recommend the NASB, ESV, and NET, and we also recommend comparison with the NIV or NLT. We also have no problem recommending the KJV or NKJV, but comparing it with other versions helps identify points of tension in need of further research. For variety, one might choose a different translation each year to read through, noting anything that sounds different or seems to give a different meaning to a text.

Every translation done in good faith by competent scholars can be considered accurate and authoritative. At the same time, human scholarship is imperfect; also, translations need to be updated over time as the English language changes.