The Bible was orignally written in foreign languages, mostly ancient Hebrew and Greek. Therefore it needs to be translated so that we can use it. Moslems hate to see their scriptures translated, but the Christian scriptures are meant to be widely translated and used. We are to make disciples of all nations. People from every language belong to God's kingdom. Translations, therefore, vary greatly even when they are in the same language such as English. These are called versions.Because there are so many English translations of the Bible, readers have a choice on Bibles. Therefore they ask, "Which version should I use?" The question has gotten ridiculous as of late because of all the marketing techniques to make profit off the selling of Bibles. But still we face the same question, "Which Bible should we use?" Let us identify the process by which people should choose an English Bible. #1 A Common Bible Version Used in Your ChurchIt is fine to follow and use the version their church or pastor uses. This is the most obvious choice. Why? Simply because it is much more important that one exposes him or herself to God's Word by reinforcement. By hearing the Bible quoted and repeated, one can learn to use it more quickly and rightly. For example, one can much more quickly follow a Bible study if he has the version the study was based on. One can more easily follow a sermon, if he uses the Bible the pastor or teacher is using. Many new Christians find an old King James Bible on their library shelf. They take it, but it is like a rusty tool that just doesn't seem to work right. The version is good and trustworthy, but it was designed for another generation. We encourage new Christians to get a Bible that their church uses. What if your church uses the King James? Then it is okay. Their constant use of it will reinforce your learning, and you will get used to it. Jesus depended upon God's Word. He knew it back and forth. We need to be like Him. Becoming acquainted with God's Word stands as one of the most important tasks of a Christian. We need to learn to use His Word as a sharp sword. Because of this, most of us should be careful limiting ourselves to the version our church uses.1 After we become familiar with the Bible the church uses, go on and explore other versions. #2 Different Purposes for Different Bible VersionsSome churches still use the antiquated King James Bible (KJV) written in the 1600s. Some of these churches are traditonalists; others are protective conservatives. I gave up using tracts that used the King James Bible. I like it. I personally grew up with that version. I can understand it and greatly respect it, but it serves poorly for teaching Christians and is plain lousy for communicating the glorious Gospel to non-Christians. I would end up spending most of my time explaining the specialized terms the KJV used rather than the meaning of the text. Perhaps the New King James Bible has overcome some of these problems. But it is so hard for churches or individuals to change. Other conservative churches that propose using only the KJV think that modern versions are polluted with another style of translation. Some allege that 'thought-for-thought' translations are written because they despise the verbal inspiration of the scriptures. Perhaps a few have this motivation, but many clearly do not think this way. Those who know several languages and do public translation are aware how foolish this argument is. Good translators communicate the original thought the best way the hearers can quickly understand. The 1996 New Living Translation, for example, aspires to impact native English speakers as the original scriptures did. Literal translations are poor translations because the hearers cannot easily undestand the content. Paraphrase Bibles such as the Living Bible are too loose with their thought translation while the NIV (New International Version) is much more conservative trying to keep the original presentation somewhat in mind.
The NIV is a good public Bible because it provides for more smooth reading. But it is for babies. Babies drink milk. It is all digested. A reader does not need to think much. The NIV does some interpretation to make the otherwise passages unclear. It is debatable whether they are always clear. However, it is easily read, but it is not a study Bible. We need to be honest that when we read, we read for different purposes. Sometimes we are reading through a book of the Bible. We are not paying attention to the particulars. For this we need a more fluent version that is easily readable. We get the major point of what is written. NIV would be good for this. On the other hand, we sometimes need to study the Bible. "Thought-for-thought' translations are poor study Bibles. We tend to examine someone else's thought more than the author's original words. For studying the meaning of Bible passages, we need a 'word-for-word' version. The closer we get to the original, the easier it will be to understand what the author really did or did not say. These study Bible versions are less readible. They are poor translations in one sense, and yet they yield greater reward for the Bible student. Memorization should always be from a more literal Bible like the NASB (New American Standard Bible) or NKJV (New King James Version). When we meditate on God's Word, the individual words are important. For some who really get into studying the Bible, transliterations are used. Every Greek word is translated, word for word. One can read this quasi-English but the translation is so poor that noone uses them to read. They use it to see which Greek words are really being used.
Conclusion: The Bible is used for different purposes depending on the occassion. We should at least have one 'literal' study Bible even if our church chooses to use another easier to read Bible in the pulpit. Bible study and meditation require those translations that have purposed to use 'word-for-word' Bibles. Yet, let us not be too hard on those 'thought-for-thought' translations that enable us to better grasp the meaning of larger portions of scripture. #3 Dependability of Bible VersionsThis section gets a bit complicated. One might want to first read the page on the Reliability of the Scriptures before reading on. Deciding on Bible versions for some people have to do with what Bible manuscripts that the version is based on. Some people get dogmatic about their one version (usually King James Version). Some of their arguments are askew. They do, however, have a few points that need to be remembered. If you want to understand this topic, there are numerous things one has to learn. We have tried to put them in chart form to keep them more simplified.
If you have specific questions about some of the texts that the modern versions have allegedly adulterated, please click here for a full discussion. A brother wrote asked about five of these supposedly perverted texts. Here you will find real clear answers. A ConclusionSome people assert certain manuscipts as more reliable than others. That is fine. Their faith will do them well. Those that understand the issue are usually more firm about it.
But even with all of these questions, we still can have a wonderful meditation time using the NIV Bible! All the work that is done behind the scenes is very thorough. To be sure more studies will produce more accurate texts, but it takes a tremendous amount of work. I personally find that there is more question about the real meaning of Bible passages from plain word studies than about the texts themselves. In Hebrew, for example, a single verb might have ten or more possible English translations! Which one is the right one? It is largely decided by context. For speed, I rarely use my Hebrew and Greek Bibles in book form anymore. I simply use my free Bible program (Online Bible) and click twice on a word and up comes an abbreviated summary of the word's usage complete with the Hebrew and Greek word. The availability of these resources will lead to more accurate and reliable texts in the future. Any version, now however, can be used and checked in a moment by such a program. The more important thing is to meditate on God's Word day and night. Believe in God's Word as Christ did. Be a doer and not only a hearer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is a refreshing testimony of the power of God's Word blended with this brother's comments on different translations that he uses.I became a Christian when I started reading the Bible to prove it wrong and the
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Knowing about God's Word and its reliability is one important matter, but one also needs to know how to meet God in the scriptures. 
Introduction | Shaping | Struggling | Excited | Meeting God | Prayer | God's Word | Preparations
Expectations | Communing | Burnout | Questions | Study Questions | Testimony | Mueller Other Articles on the Origin of the Bible Series
The Bible's Challenge | Transformation | Canonization| Extent | Inspiration | Reliability | Relevance | Version | Series Download in pdf
BFF Homepage | Back | Topical Index | Next Please contact Paul at info@foundationsforfreedom.net Biblical Foundations for Freedom Paul J. Bucknell 1) Cults like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons use their own scriptures which should not be used. They are not the Bible. (1) WestCott-Hort View The Westcott and Hort largely base their 1881 composite Greek New Testament Bible largely upon two Alexandrian (Egyptian) texts: Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) manuscripts. These whole NT manuscripts were not brought together until the 4th-5th century and were influenced by the Gnosticism (cult) of that area. This Greek Text is still largely used and often referred to as the modern critical text. Most importantly we need to note that most of our modern English versions including the NASB and the NIV are founded upon such texts. We can appreciate why many fundamentalists avoid such versions and cling to the King James Version founded upon another set of Bible manuscripts called the Received Text. Egyptian texts are among the oldest because the dry climate is conducive to preserving the old texts. Alexandrian and so-called 'neutral' texts derive from Egypt. Some argue that the older manuscripts are more accurate, but this is not necessarily true. Just because they lasted longer in the dry climate does not make them more accurate. Most modern versions follow two collections of the 27 books that were assembled together. Others question these collection of manuscripts. Who composed them? Why were they sitting on an old library shelf? Why was one being burned up as scrap paper? Were the variants because of false teaching in Egypt? These are good questions that must be taken into consideration. (2) The Received Text (KJV) The Received Text (Textus Receptus) represents 99% (the majority) of the manuscripts. It is unfortunate that the Westcott and Hort Greek text largely ignored the majority of texts called the Byzantine texts.1 The church in the Roman Empire eventually developed into Christendom's two powerful centers: Rome in the West and Byzantine (Constantinople) in the East. Syria also developed a center near Antioch. The Byzantine manuscripts are very similar. Many have dismissed their value them because of their similarity! (One would think that would aid their validity). Others say that this consistency is what we should have expected with the treasured Bible texts. The texts that Westcott and Hort used had many more discrepancies (i.e. differences). Summary |
The most helpful versions include a narrow column of Bible verses that refer to other similiar verses in the Bible (ie. references). Often these references are the Old Testament verse that has been quoted or referred to. The column like the picture on the left also will have a few comments about another possible rendering due to some other manuscripts using a different word.