The original NIV was quite good and I've used it a fair amount in the past. They did a revision that went woke and I can't recommend it. I can't remember the copyright years.
Yea, I mostly agree. I put the newer versions of the NIV into the "Suspect" category. I don't think they went fully woke and actually changed any doctrine... yet. But they are certainly leaning hard on "inclusion." Some level of inclusion, I don't mind. When the Bible says "brothers," it often means "believers" or "brothers and sisters," and I don't mind a legitimate change like that. It's not because the Bible authors were part of the evil "patriarchy" but because that was just how society talked at that time in that culture. But I do think it becomes a slippery slope and if the translation team isn't on guard for it, it can definitely slide into heresy to try to curry favor with modern sensibilities. So, my question to the latest NIV translation teams is, "Why put your toes right up to the line, even if you didn't actually step over it? Did you really need to?" As you say, though, the original (non-inclusive) version of the NIV was fine. And again, I don't have severe heartburn even with the latest NIV versions. But I am concerned about what comes next.
Okay, I have to say I am a fan of The Message version, but I also compare what it is saying to another version on the good list. It got me enjoying my daily Bible reading more. I like AMP a lot, too. I will keep in mind that going forward if I recommend The MSG to anybody, I will also tell them to use a second version from the good list to compare. Thanks.
I originally listed The Message in a category I called "On the Bubble" when I was writing the article, but I moved it down below into Bad. If you know what The Message is and you understand its limitations, I think it's OK. I've consulted it many times over the years when I'm trying to understand a difficult section, just to try to get its take on the passage. That said, some people really hate it and think it changes doctrine. I've seen a couple cases where it might be argued that it plays fast and loose with doctrine (admittedly, not good), but it certainly doesn't do that with respect to the big doctrines (e.g., Christ's divinity, atonement, etc.). The main issue with The Message, IMO, is that it's a paraphrase (therefore VERY loose) that was written by one person, Eugene Peterson. So, you don't have a team cross-checking each other and saying, "Hm... I know we're creating a paraphrase but maybe that's too fast and loose and maybe we just stepped over the line." The original Living Bible, had the same issue; it was a paraphrase written by one man, Ken Taylor. Both of those can be useful, but you MUST have another Bible that you're reading and cross-checking with. The New Living Translation (NLT) was a new full translation, not a paraphrase, that used the Living Bible as an original source (many Bible translations use another English Bible as a source text and then do updates to it, so that's not problematic) and was done by a full translation team. So, yea, in my mind, I actually put The Message in a category I'd call "On the Bubble" or perhaps "OK if used responsibly by mature Christians." But I also think the NLT is a better choice for people wanting a less formal translation because it's still doctrinally accurate and is a real translation, not a paraphrase, done by a full translation team.
NASB ‘77 here. The thought-for-thought translations that I’ve read are fine — I’ve never seen any renderings that I suspected of significant error. I think my preference for NASB is mostly esthetic: it seems to preserve the flavor of not having been written last week. I particularly like that the words inserted by the translators to make it flow (article adjectives like “the,” etc.) are italicized. I generally read those words like all the others, but occasionally skip them to get the flavor (and appreciate the translators’ work a bit more).
Yes, those are good, too, but not for your average Bible reader. But yea, when you really want to go deep in a study, I use those too. I have a Logos subscription and have Greek and Hebrew interlinear there.
These translations won’t fill all needs for a Christian reader but I suggest adding the Jewish Publication Society translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as well as Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible.
And for a better sense of the sound and feel of the language in the original Hebrew (though not necessarily a better understanding of the plain meaning of the text), check out Everett Fox’s translation of the first five books of the Bible.
Thank you David, great article. Now I want to throw you a curve ball, what do you think about the Ethiopian Bible? I have heard good things about it, but I am not sure I want to spend the money without knowing for sure.
Apparently it contains (15) books that are not in traditional Bibles like the Book of Enoch and others. It is also said to be more historically accurate according to Ethiopian Christians. I just thought you may have heard something about it, good or bad.
I’m not sure what “more historically accurate” would mean, exactly. The existing canonical Bible already discuss in great detail about Jesus, who he was, why he came and the work that he accomplished. For me, Jesus is enough. The whole story is really all about him. So, I don’t need any more apocryphal books to study. The traditional canon holds enough to read and study for multiple lifetimes.
Thank you for this well written column. My own experience crosses yours except for the digital expression. An NASB ‘95 is my daily driver since college as that was where I started my growth as a believer. Became a Christian in high school while attending a liberal church using the RSV, a place where my confession of faith was ignored. The college transition was easy as the (NASB ‘71 at the time) used good, precise English that for me flowed as easy as the KJV or RSV does to many. Since that time I’ve added many ESV bibles as I’ve learned the value of good printing on superior paper and a variety of formats for different purposes. Single column paragraph with little or no chapter and verse notations, no cross references have added a whole new dimension to my study. Two column, cross references, notes, and concordance are useful for study but not for immersion in the word. Thus, precision in translation and language is vital while how the Word is set to paper makes it come alive.
Nice! I definitely prefer the NASB to the KJV. There's that old saying from a pre-digital age that "You can recognize a strong Christian by his tattered Bible." If someone's paper Bible was crisp and clean, and the spine isn't yet broken, you could tell it was carried more for show than for reading. My problem is that I don't want to carry multiple Bibles. Maybe I should invest in slimline editions for each, though. Digital is convenient, but there's something about God's word on paper.
I typically use the NIV to write my Bible studies because I find it easier to read. And that's the version I have an exhaustive concordance for, which is super helpful when doing word studies. I wanted to switch to ESV at one point, but I couldn't find an exhaustive concordance in ESV. I like NIV and ESV, and I've been trying to learn more Greek too, so I often go to NASB to compare. It is definitely a blessing to have so many good options!
I have a collection of various “Translations.”
My carry Bible to Service is now the ESV Study Bible.
My former carry New King James has become tattered, well marked, book labels missing.
Our Pastor, Dr. Daniel McMillan, reads passages each Service from the ESV.
https://www.concordpresbyterian.org/
https://www.youtube.com/@concordpresbyterianchurch560
https://youtu.be/2TgUp1r8Lgs
Excellent Redux. Thank you David.
The original NIV was quite good and I've used it a fair amount in the past. They did a revision that went woke and I can't recommend it. I can't remember the copyright years.
Yea, I mostly agree. I put the newer versions of the NIV into the "Suspect" category. I don't think they went fully woke and actually changed any doctrine... yet. But they are certainly leaning hard on "inclusion." Some level of inclusion, I don't mind. When the Bible says "brothers," it often means "believers" or "brothers and sisters," and I don't mind a legitimate change like that. It's not because the Bible authors were part of the evil "patriarchy" but because that was just how society talked at that time in that culture. But I do think it becomes a slippery slope and if the translation team isn't on guard for it, it can definitely slide into heresy to try to curry favor with modern sensibilities. So, my question to the latest NIV translation teams is, "Why put your toes right up to the line, even if you didn't actually step over it? Did you really need to?" As you say, though, the original (non-inclusive) version of the NIV was fine. And again, I don't have severe heartburn even with the latest NIV versions. But I am concerned about what comes next.
Okay, I have to say I am a fan of The Message version, but I also compare what it is saying to another version on the good list. It got me enjoying my daily Bible reading more. I like AMP a lot, too. I will keep in mind that going forward if I recommend The MSG to anybody, I will also tell them to use a second version from the good list to compare. Thanks.
I originally listed The Message in a category I called "On the Bubble" when I was writing the article, but I moved it down below into Bad. If you know what The Message is and you understand its limitations, I think it's OK. I've consulted it many times over the years when I'm trying to understand a difficult section, just to try to get its take on the passage. That said, some people really hate it and think it changes doctrine. I've seen a couple cases where it might be argued that it plays fast and loose with doctrine (admittedly, not good), but it certainly doesn't do that with respect to the big doctrines (e.g., Christ's divinity, atonement, etc.). The main issue with The Message, IMO, is that it's a paraphrase (therefore VERY loose) that was written by one person, Eugene Peterson. So, you don't have a team cross-checking each other and saying, "Hm... I know we're creating a paraphrase but maybe that's too fast and loose and maybe we just stepped over the line." The original Living Bible, had the same issue; it was a paraphrase written by one man, Ken Taylor. Both of those can be useful, but you MUST have another Bible that you're reading and cross-checking with. The New Living Translation (NLT) was a new full translation, not a paraphrase, that used the Living Bible as an original source (many Bible translations use another English Bible as a source text and then do updates to it, so that's not problematic) and was done by a full translation team. So, yea, in my mind, I actually put The Message in a category I'd call "On the Bubble" or perhaps "OK if used responsibly by mature Christians." But I also think the NLT is a better choice for people wanting a less formal translation because it's still doctrinally accurate and is a real translation, not a paraphrase, done by a full translation team.
NASB ‘77 here. The thought-for-thought translations that I’ve read are fine — I’ve never seen any renderings that I suspected of significant error. I think my preference for NASB is mostly esthetic: it seems to preserve the flavor of not having been written last week. I particularly like that the words inserted by the translators to make it flow (article adjectives like “the,” etc.) are italicized. I generally read those words like all the others, but occasionally skip them to get the flavor (and appreciate the translators’ work a bit more).
Good article — I enjoyed it.
Thanks for the kind words.
Greek / english ⛪☦️✍🏼
Latin / english 🌍 ✝️ ⚜️
Interlinears with Strong's number 🇬🇧 Refs are super helpful for us mono-lingual 'mericans.✔️
Yes, those are good, too, but not for your average Bible reader. But yea, when you really want to go deep in a study, I use those too. I have a Logos subscription and have Greek and Hebrew interlinear there.
These translations won’t fill all needs for a Christian reader but I suggest adding the Jewish Publication Society translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as well as Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible.
And for a better sense of the sound and feel of the language in the original Hebrew (though not necessarily a better understanding of the plain meaning of the text), check out Everett Fox’s translation of the first five books of the Bible.
That Tanakh is very good! (right to left) 😉
Great suggestions.
Thank you David, great article. Now I want to throw you a curve ball, what do you think about the Ethiopian Bible? I have heard good things about it, but I am not sure I want to spend the money without knowing for sure.
I have no opinion about it. What do you hope to accomplish with it?
Apparently it contains (15) books that are not in traditional Bibles like the Book of Enoch and others. It is also said to be more historically accurate according to Ethiopian Christians. I just thought you may have heard something about it, good or bad.
I’m not sure what “more historically accurate” would mean, exactly. The existing canonical Bible already discuss in great detail about Jesus, who he was, why he came and the work that he accomplished. For me, Jesus is enough. The whole story is really all about him. So, I don’t need any more apocryphal books to study. The traditional canon holds enough to read and study for multiple lifetimes.
Thank you for this well written column. My own experience crosses yours except for the digital expression. An NASB ‘95 is my daily driver since college as that was where I started my growth as a believer. Became a Christian in high school while attending a liberal church using the RSV, a place where my confession of faith was ignored. The college transition was easy as the (NASB ‘71 at the time) used good, precise English that for me flowed as easy as the KJV or RSV does to many. Since that time I’ve added many ESV bibles as I’ve learned the value of good printing on superior paper and a variety of formats for different purposes. Single column paragraph with little or no chapter and verse notations, no cross references have added a whole new dimension to my study. Two column, cross references, notes, and concordance are useful for study but not for immersion in the word. Thus, precision in translation and language is vital while how the Word is set to paper makes it come alive.
Nice! I definitely prefer the NASB to the KJV. There's that old saying from a pre-digital age that "You can recognize a strong Christian by his tattered Bible." If someone's paper Bible was crisp and clean, and the spine isn't yet broken, you could tell it was carried more for show than for reading. My problem is that I don't want to carry multiple Bibles. Maybe I should invest in slimline editions for each, though. Digital is convenient, but there's something about God's word on paper.
I typically use the NIV to write my Bible studies because I find it easier to read. And that's the version I have an exhaustive concordance for, which is super helpful when doing word studies. I wanted to switch to ESV at one point, but I couldn't find an exhaustive concordance in ESV. I like NIV and ESV, and I've been trying to learn more Greek too, so I often go to NASB to compare. It is definitely a blessing to have so many good options!
Those are all great choices. I used the NIV heavily before the NLT came out.