How to Choose a Bible Translation, Part 1

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

This information comes from an excellent article entitled, “How to Choose a Bible Translation” by James Parkinson

Which translation of the Bible is best for the devoted Christian? How faithful is it to the Word of God in the original Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek? How much should the Christian entrust his spiritual life to that translation?

The follower of the Lord must be wary of simply searching to find a translation that supports the viewpoint he or she likes, else they will be among them that "Will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts" (See 2 Tim 4:3).

We must first admit the possibility that early and top-quality manuscripts read differently and also that there may be a mistranslation (this can be due to various reasons, it could simply be because it is difficult to translate, or the translator's theological bias overcomes him, or occasionally because the translator simply cannot understand the text) no matter how skilled and conscientious are the translators, as well as the readers, they still are imperfect.

A reliable mark of a translator's integrity is most often found in passages, which are hard to reconcile with his own theology or doctrine.

Most of these may be grouped under: (1) the nature of God and Christ; (2) the nature of man [e.g., the soul]; (3) the nature of atonement; and (4) prophecy.

A second mark is found in making the English translation preserve no more--and no less--the ambiguity than is found in the original Greek or Hebrew. The selection of a corrupted text (for example, Textus Receptus and/or the Majority Text) might reflect badly on a New Testament translator's judgment or integrity.”

“Practically no English translation is without some merit. (Joseph Smith's Inspired Version appears to be an exception.) The Authorized Version, or King James Version (AV or KJV) probably reaches a standard of literary excellence unmatched in any language (including the Hebrew and Greek), but at significant cost of faithfulness to the original. The Revised Version (RV) and American Standard Version (ASV, 1901) correct a majority of the AV errors at minimal sacrifice of literary style, though they retain much of its theological bias.

Many versions update the language to modem English. The New American Standard Bible (NASB or NAS) retains most of the accuracy of the ASV; while the Revised Standard Version (RSV, a revision of the ASV apparently influenced by the Jewish Publication Society) stresses understand-ability at the expense of accuracy; the New English Bible (NEB) starts from scratch and takes a still greater step backwards in accuracy.

The New International Version (NIV) tries to balance accuracy; clarity, literary quality, and some measure of continuity with the AV and ASV translations, though in its claimed suppression of "sectarian bias," it openly retains the strongest bias towards traditional evangelical theology.

J. B. Rotherham (British Adventist) The Emphasized Bible (1872-1902) stresses accuracy, even to including the appropriate emphasis in English. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT, 1950) offers a relatively accurate translation from a different theological perspective. Like Rotherham, though, it is often not smooth reading.

I don’t know about you, but as for myself especially since becoming a TRUE Bible Student, accuracy means more to me than easy reading quality. Besides you can always own more that one bible, one for general reading and or following along with your study group or minister, and one for serious study. I personally use the NKJV for general reading and others such as Rotherham's and the Diaglott for study.

There have been some surprises for the writer. Overall, the most accurate appears to be Rotherham, even though significantly short of the ideal. In the Old Testament, ASV, NASB and RSV are comparably strong. In the New Testament, the Marshall and Kingdom Interlinear diaglotts are worthy competitors, while Concordant and the Wilson Diaglott also would have been had they started with better Greek texts.

For personal and group study the ASV and NASB have advantages. They are more accurate than most. They read well and are easily followed by those who are reading from the KJV, and the additional Bible helps (concordances, lexicons, cross-references) are easily adaptable to them. Very good points.

The first reference to consult for accuracy should likely be Rotherham. If ASV, Rotherham, Marshall Diaglott and the Kingdom Interlinear (or JPS and NWF in the Old Testament) all agree, then there is a high likelihood that the translation is correct. I also use Wilson's Diaglott not as good as Marshall's or the Kingdom Interlinear Diaglott's, but sufficient for the task. I have recently ordered both the Kingdom Interlinear and Nestle-Aland's Diaglott to include in my studies.

A good study Bible should have chapter and verse numbers, marginal references, preferably a good concordance and maps, a sturdy binding, and should be as accurate as possible. The student should add notes, alternative translations, and corrections of which he can be confident.” Personally I don't like bibles with concordances, maps and other clutter, you can easily access all these things on the internet. I like a plain bible with large margins so as to have plenty of room for notes.

In our next post we will rate a few of the various translations.

Back to Index

Blog entry information

Author
Harvest 1874
Read time
4 min read
Views
1,159
Comments
5
Last update

More entries in General

More entries from Harvest 1874

Share this entry