I have been reading from the same KJV bible given me as a gift 47 yrs ago.
I did a comparison of the NIV & ESV back in the mid 90's. I was shocked at the changes in both of those versions, did research on them also.
Ended throwing both versions into the garbage, from whence they came.
I find the KJV easy to read, when I have questions for understanding I just ask the Lord to grant the Holy Spirit to open my eyes to see, and my ears to hear, so that I can understand the Spirit of the Word instead of the letter of the word.
Those other bibles you have mentioned, I did research on through the years, and I can not accept any of them.
The KJV is a fine translation, particularly for the time it was created. There are a lot of conspiracy theories that surround it, however, which I reject. A lot of Biblical scholarship has happened since 1769, including discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The KJV does not take any of that into account, simply because it's old. The language of the KJV is also not as understandable for a modern reader. But if you enjoy the KJV and find the archaic language understandable, then keep on reading it. The most important thing is to pick a good translation that you can understand and that you're regularly in the Word. I personally have no issue with either the ESV or NIV (particularly the 1985 edition of the NIV). I also love the NLT as a smooth, daily reading Bible. When I want to go deeper with a more literal translation, I reach for the NASB or, increasingly, the LSB.
I have found those who do read the NIV, ESV, the Message which is not a trustworthy "version" in any form of the truth, all have a major error in their belief systems, which leads them further away from the Revealed will of God, and the Narrow way.
So I will disagree with you in totality. Time will tell......if one stands or one falls from the truth.
Interesting. Which major errors do such people have and how do those translations contribute to those errors? Can you give me an example?
(I somewhat agree with you on The Message. It's a paraphrase, not a translation, however, and is therefore very loose with the text. I think it's alright to use it as a secondary resource, almost like a commentary. But sometimes, I think it strays into actual doctrinal changes, which is not good. Therefore, DO NOT use The Message as your primary Bible. That said, beware of commentaries and study bible interpretations as well. You need to understand the worldview of the people writing your "helps." A commentary written by a progressive Christian in 2025 is likely to give you a totally different theology than one written by a conservative protestant in 1900.)
I have an autoimmune condition that drys out my eyes so i dont read much anymore, but i do like Youversion bc i can have it read to me in any version i choose. I love the NIV read in a mature and manly english accent. 😊 i also really like The Daily Audio Bible which takes you through the Bible, Genesis- Revelations in one year.
Youversion also offers bible reading plans and verse of the day among other benefits.
For most study I use the NASB or ESV. They are word for word translations that used the oldest manuscripts.
I gave my son with down syndrome a NLT Bible because it is easier to read and understand. I generally don't like the paraphrase Bibles because there is too much opportunity for the translator to add their opinions, but the NLT seems to be the best paraphrase. It can work for those, like kids, that have trouble understanding the word for word translations.
The original NIV is good, but I wouldn't use the newer NIV translation. It went a bit woke and is no longer trustworthy.
I have an ancient Geneva Bible, but it is mostly kept in a safe. The Old English is tricky and when yoy add the small print and my old eyes, it takes a lot of energy to read.
I use the NLT as my daily reading Bible because the language just flows so much better. The NLT is not a paraphrase, though. It's a legit translation, albeit a "thought for thought" translation, not word for word. So, therefore a looser translation. Typically, I'll read the NLT, then when I want to dive down into something deeper and go word for word, I'll reach for the NASB or ESV. As you say, the original NIV was great (sort of along the same lines as the NLT), but then decided that political correctness was more important than accuracy. I like the language of the KJV and Geneva Bible when you want something that sounds old, but they are just more difficult for the average reader to understand and they also miss out on hundreds of years of Biblical manuscript scholarship and finds. But in their day, they were truly remarkable.
We have the same "top 3", in a different order. The NIV (197? version) was my reading Bible in an earlier time, going on 30 years ago. Today the newer version is my church's favored translation, and I have started using it in our on-campus small group to hopefully reduce confusion (but I'm not sure that anyone else there is using it!). I have limited vision, and I use a tablet PC running Accordance. I have the selected translation on the left side of the screen, and the Greek (and also Hebrew for the OT) on the right, and I check anything that has a strange sound to it.
The NASB is my reading/study Bible now -- the NLT was for a while. I use the NLT when it makes more sense. It does an exception job of readable translation in some places, less so in others.
I also sometimes use the ESV -- I've been going through the OT with it, this pass -- and the CSB, which was the version used by the curriculum when I was teaching 3rd graders in Sunday school. The CSB is somewhere between the ESV and the NLT. The CSB Study Bible is also quite good, for the most part.
The Message? Well, it has its uses too. I can't think of too many, but I have it and when I get stuck I will sometimes turn to it for an "original" (i.e. not tradition-bound) take. I view the different translations as "many witnesses".
I've looked at that one, but I am in the midst, with many distractions, of learning the Hebrew alphabet and adjusting to the typography of the Geneva Bible at the same time seems a bit much. If only we HAD "original Hebrew". I work to some extent with the Greek Septuagint, which is translated from much older Hebrew than the Masoretic Text.
It seems clear to me that there is something odd about our common OT translations. Learning some Hebrew might help -- learning some Koine Greek certainly has -- but the Geneva Bible might well have its place there as well.
Geneva is my main reading Bible. Elizabethan English is not terribly difficult to read and understand since its main difference with modern English is typography. That said, the Geneva has helpful margin notes and maps; it was the Bible used by both the Puritans and the nation's founders, and so is a dissenter's Bible. But its most important advantage is that it foregrounds the extremely personal relationship that God hoped to establish with his people (because it is a translation of the original Hebrew) as opposed to other translations which foreground priests and church and governmental institutions as mediators between individuals and God. So threatening was the Geneva Bible to King James I, that he banned it. If you read any of the Old Testament stories comparing the Geneva with almost any other translation you will spot significant differences in message and tone. Those differences indicate the absolute love God has for his people and the heartbreak (not rage) that God feels in his heart when his people continually disappointed him in their inability to live in his moral universe.
I remember you commenting about the Geneva Bible before and talking about the tonal differences. Is there a simple example of the difference that you could share? I’ve never read the Geneva Bible, but I’ve also never gotten the idea that God has rage for his people. We do disappoint him and he does eventually get angry with dis behavior (read most of the prophets and that’s there message), but he also loves us enough to pay the ultimate price in order to save us.
Here's one small (or maybe not so small) example: In Genesis 8:21, in the Jerusalem Bible, God says "Never again will I curse the earth because of human beings, because their heart contrives evil from their infancy." In the Geneva Bible, same verse, we read "... and the Lord said in his heart, I will henceforth curse the ground no more for man’s cause: for the imagination of man’s heart is evil, even from his youth: neither will I smite anymore all things living, as I have done." There are two differences here that merit our attention. First, in the Jerusalem Bible, God says that humans have evil hearts from birth. That's a very strong statement. But in the Geneva Bible (which is translated directly from the Hebrew), God is more complex and appears to view his people as more complex when he says it is our imaginations from which evil springs. That is not so damning. There are lots of examples like this throughout much of the Old Testament, showing that God is not as likely to write off humans as having evil hearts. Evil imagination is not nearly so condemnatory. Likewise, the Geneva Bible says that God checks his own heart, showing a God who understands his people's tendency to not be inherently evil from infancy but rather is unfortunately capable of it. One gets the impression throughout Genesis that God and his humans are each trying to get to know each other.
I don't know if this example is the best demonstration of the differences, but there are many like it. I think the whole point is that the relationship between God and his people in the Geneva Bible is one based on love and tenderness and caring and protection for each individual from God whereas later translations see our relationship to God as requiring intermediaries such as religious institutions and priests.
One last thing, I cannot attest to this personally because I cannot read Hebrew, but Naomi Wolf has pointed out a number of word choices in later translations that are incorrect understandings of the original Hebrew.
100 percent agree with your choices! I often follow along with an out-loud reading of a text in a different version. My physical Bibles are all study versions, and I almost always read the footnotes and alternative translations as well.
I have been reading from the same KJV bible given me as a gift 47 yrs ago.
I did a comparison of the NIV & ESV back in the mid 90's. I was shocked at the changes in both of those versions, did research on them also.
Ended throwing both versions into the garbage, from whence they came.
I find the KJV easy to read, when I have questions for understanding I just ask the Lord to grant the Holy Spirit to open my eyes to see, and my ears to hear, so that I can understand the Spirit of the Word instead of the letter of the word.
Those other bibles you have mentioned, I did research on through the years, and I can not accept any of them.
Lord bless you....
The KJV is a fine translation, particularly for the time it was created. There are a lot of conspiracy theories that surround it, however, which I reject. A lot of Biblical scholarship has happened since 1769, including discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The KJV does not take any of that into account, simply because it's old. The language of the KJV is also not as understandable for a modern reader. But if you enjoy the KJV and find the archaic language understandable, then keep on reading it. The most important thing is to pick a good translation that you can understand and that you're regularly in the Word. I personally have no issue with either the ESV or NIV (particularly the 1985 edition of the NIV). I also love the NLT as a smooth, daily reading Bible. When I want to go deeper with a more literal translation, I reach for the NASB or, increasingly, the LSB.
I have found those who do read the NIV, ESV, the Message which is not a trustworthy "version" in any form of the truth, all have a major error in their belief systems, which leads them further away from the Revealed will of God, and the Narrow way.
So I will disagree with you in totality. Time will tell......if one stands or one falls from the truth.
Lord bless you.
Interesting. Which major errors do such people have and how do those translations contribute to those errors? Can you give me an example?
(I somewhat agree with you on The Message. It's a paraphrase, not a translation, however, and is therefore very loose with the text. I think it's alright to use it as a secondary resource, almost like a commentary. But sometimes, I think it strays into actual doctrinal changes, which is not good. Therefore, DO NOT use The Message as your primary Bible. That said, beware of commentaries and study bible interpretations as well. You need to understand the worldview of the people writing your "helps." A commentary written by a progressive Christian in 2025 is likely to give you a totally different theology than one written by a conservative protestant in 1900.)
I have an autoimmune condition that drys out my eyes so i dont read much anymore, but i do like Youversion bc i can have it read to me in any version i choose. I love the NIV read in a mature and manly english accent. 😊 i also really like The Daily Audio Bible which takes you through the Bible, Genesis- Revelations in one year.
Youversion also offers bible reading plans and verse of the day among other benefits.
For most study I use the NASB or ESV. They are word for word translations that used the oldest manuscripts.
I gave my son with down syndrome a NLT Bible because it is easier to read and understand. I generally don't like the paraphrase Bibles because there is too much opportunity for the translator to add their opinions, but the NLT seems to be the best paraphrase. It can work for those, like kids, that have trouble understanding the word for word translations.
The original NIV is good, but I wouldn't use the newer NIV translation. It went a bit woke and is no longer trustworthy.
I have an ancient Geneva Bible, but it is mostly kept in a safe. The Old English is tricky and when yoy add the small print and my old eyes, it takes a lot of energy to read.
I use the NLT as my daily reading Bible because the language just flows so much better. The NLT is not a paraphrase, though. It's a legit translation, albeit a "thought for thought" translation, not word for word. So, therefore a looser translation. Typically, I'll read the NLT, then when I want to dive down into something deeper and go word for word, I'll reach for the NASB or ESV. As you say, the original NIV was great (sort of along the same lines as the NLT), but then decided that political correctness was more important than accuracy. I like the language of the KJV and Geneva Bible when you want something that sounds old, but they are just more difficult for the average reader to understand and they also miss out on hundreds of years of Biblical manuscript scholarship and finds. But in their day, they were truly remarkable.
Agreed
I prefer Young's Literal Translation, YLT.
A parallel display with the Geneva can be seen at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208&version=YLT;GNV
A variety of download options exist, also. A comfortable pdf read may need some hunting. https://presearch.com/search?q=youngs+literal+translation+YLT+pdf
Also, Geneva pdf https://presearch.com/search?q=1560+Geneva+Bible+pdf
Interesting. What draws you to those translations?
I consider them to be more faithful to the original texts, and YLT, to me, seems often more nuanced, penetrating, alive.
The Geneva reference shows the comparison in Genesis 8:21 (mentioned in previous comments.)
The maturity of Puritan and Reformed sources opened up a depth I could not ignore when discovered in my later years.
We have the same "top 3", in a different order. The NIV (197? version) was my reading Bible in an earlier time, going on 30 years ago. Today the newer version is my church's favored translation, and I have started using it in our on-campus small group to hopefully reduce confusion (but I'm not sure that anyone else there is using it!). I have limited vision, and I use a tablet PC running Accordance. I have the selected translation on the left side of the screen, and the Greek (and also Hebrew for the OT) on the right, and I check anything that has a strange sound to it.
The NASB is my reading/study Bible now -- the NLT was for a while. I use the NLT when it makes more sense. It does an exception job of readable translation in some places, less so in others.
I also sometimes use the ESV -- I've been going through the OT with it, this pass -- and the CSB, which was the version used by the curriculum when I was teaching 3rd graders in Sunday school. The CSB is somewhere between the ESV and the NLT. The CSB Study Bible is also quite good, for the most part.
The Message? Well, it has its uses too. I can't think of too many, but I have it and when I get stuck I will sometimes turn to it for an "original" (i.e. not tradition-bound) take. I view the different translations as "many witnesses".
I like your logic.
The 1560 Geneva Bible.
I've looked at that one, but I am in the midst, with many distractions, of learning the Hebrew alphabet and adjusting to the typography of the Geneva Bible at the same time seems a bit much. If only we HAD "original Hebrew". I work to some extent with the Greek Septuagint, which is translated from much older Hebrew than the Masoretic Text.
It seems clear to me that there is something odd about our common OT translations. Learning some Hebrew might help -- learning some Koine Greek certainly has -- but the Geneva Bible might well have its place there as well.
Wow, interesting. Is that your main reading Bible? Or just one among others?
Geneva is my main reading Bible. Elizabethan English is not terribly difficult to read and understand since its main difference with modern English is typography. That said, the Geneva has helpful margin notes and maps; it was the Bible used by both the Puritans and the nation's founders, and so is a dissenter's Bible. But its most important advantage is that it foregrounds the extremely personal relationship that God hoped to establish with his people (because it is a translation of the original Hebrew) as opposed to other translations which foreground priests and church and governmental institutions as mediators between individuals and God. So threatening was the Geneva Bible to King James I, that he banned it. If you read any of the Old Testament stories comparing the Geneva with almost any other translation you will spot significant differences in message and tone. Those differences indicate the absolute love God has for his people and the heartbreak (not rage) that God feels in his heart when his people continually disappointed him in their inability to live in his moral universe.
thank you this is so interesting! I want to get a copy!
Amazon has a very inexpensive Geneva for Kindle. In paper, it’s often quite expensive.
I remember you commenting about the Geneva Bible before and talking about the tonal differences. Is there a simple example of the difference that you could share? I’ve never read the Geneva Bible, but I’ve also never gotten the idea that God has rage for his people. We do disappoint him and he does eventually get angry with dis behavior (read most of the prophets and that’s there message), but he also loves us enough to pay the ultimate price in order to save us.
Here's one small (or maybe not so small) example: In Genesis 8:21, in the Jerusalem Bible, God says "Never again will I curse the earth because of human beings, because their heart contrives evil from their infancy." In the Geneva Bible, same verse, we read "... and the Lord said in his heart, I will henceforth curse the ground no more for man’s cause: for the imagination of man’s heart is evil, even from his youth: neither will I smite anymore all things living, as I have done." There are two differences here that merit our attention. First, in the Jerusalem Bible, God says that humans have evil hearts from birth. That's a very strong statement. But in the Geneva Bible (which is translated directly from the Hebrew), God is more complex and appears to view his people as more complex when he says it is our imaginations from which evil springs. That is not so damning. There are lots of examples like this throughout much of the Old Testament, showing that God is not as likely to write off humans as having evil hearts. Evil imagination is not nearly so condemnatory. Likewise, the Geneva Bible says that God checks his own heart, showing a God who understands his people's tendency to not be inherently evil from infancy but rather is unfortunately capable of it. One gets the impression throughout Genesis that God and his humans are each trying to get to know each other.
I don't know if this example is the best demonstration of the differences, but there are many like it. I think the whole point is that the relationship between God and his people in the Geneva Bible is one based on love and tenderness and caring and protection for each individual from God whereas later translations see our relationship to God as requiring intermediaries such as religious institutions and priests.
One last thing, I cannot attest to this personally because I cannot read Hebrew, but Naomi Wolf has pointed out a number of word choices in later translations that are incorrect understandings of the original Hebrew.
Interesting! Thank you. I’ll check it out.
I’ll find an example and let you know sometime later today. Thanks for your interest!
100 percent agree with your choices! I often follow along with an out-loud reading of a text in a different version. My physical Bibles are all study versions, and I almost always read the footnotes and alternative translations as well.
ESV on Olivetree Bible app on my tabpet for church
Ryrie at home.
Ryrie is best.