Which Bible version should I use?

I regularly receive questions about Bible translations. ‘Why do we have so many versions of the Bible?’ ‘Why are they so different sometimes?’ ‘Which one should I use?’ Along with a vibrant prayer life, reading and studying the Scriptures are essential for our spiritual health. I want to take a few weeks to explore some simple principles for studying the Bible—principles that any believer can use. But before we discuss how to study the Bible, it’s helpful for all Christians to understand a little about the Bible itself and why we have different translations from which to choose.

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek and some short sections in Aramaic. Not many of us fluently read ancient Hebrew or Greek, so we can’t simply pick up these manuscripts and read them for ourselves. We need the Scriptures to be translated for us so we can read them in our own language and clearly understand what’s being communicated.

For many years, the common translation for most English-speaking Christians was the King James Version. But we no longer speak to each other in the archaic English used in the KJV. In fact, the language has changed to the point where many words found in the KJV have completely different, even opposite, meanings from what they meant in 1611 when the KJV was first published. Because of this, most people today find the KJV to be indecipherable or even misleading. The purpose of the KJV translators was to “deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue they understand.” For most of us, this means choosing a modern translation—but which one? How do the translations differ from one another?

The most significant difference between the modern translations is how they’re translated. There are three basic approaches. Let me explain the different translation styles, and then we’ll compare them.

Some people say they prefer “literal” translations. While there is no truly literal, word-for-word translation, some Bible versions strive to be as close to the original languages as possible. They focus on the meanings of individual words, and they try to retain the original word order as much as they can. This is known as a formal approach to Bible translation. Examples of formal translations would be the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the English Standard Version (ESV).

Other Bibles are extremely free and dynamic in rendering the original into English. This kind of Bible is called a paraphrase. Paraphrases try to make the Bible as understandable and fresh as possible, but sometimes by going beyond the meaning of the text. The most well-known paraphrase currently is The Message.

Other translations aim for a median approach, striving for a thought-for-thought translation (which is the standard method of translating) as opposed to a word-for-word translation. Rather than focusing on individual words, these translations seek to accurately convey the meaning of whole phrases, sentences and paragraphs. Examples of these functional translations would be the New Living Translation (NLT), the New International Version (NIV), the New English Translation (NET), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

Which is the best kind of translation? It depends on how you intend to use it. All of these versions can be used effectively. But you’re also going to discover some limitations. For instance, anyone familiar with a foreign language will understand that a truly “literal,” word-for-word translation is seldom possible. The familiar Spanish phrase “como se llama,” would have to literally be translated as something like: “as it is called.” But anyone who knows even a little Spanish recognizes this isn’t what the phrase means. The “literal” translation doesn’t accurately convey the actual, literal meaning of the phrase. (Which is why we don’t translate that way.) To accurately translate the phrase, we have to put it into a corresponding, functional English phrase: “What is your name?”

A great way to illustrate how the different approaches work is to translate the French expression: J’ai le cafard. [I’m borrowing this illustration from James R. White’s book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?] If we were to translate this as literally as possible, we would end up with: I have the cockroach. So now would you understand what your French friend is talking about? Not unless they were speaking of a literal cockroach (which they wouldn’t be). We haven’t really gotten that far, have we? We’ve translated the individual words into English, but we haven’t conveyed the idea the person is expressing. We’re as much in the dark as we were before. We’re still stuck with a sentence we don’t understand.

But what if we were to translate the whole phrase instead of just the individual words? What if we took what the entire expression means in French and conveyed it in clear English? Then we would have something like: I am depressed. Or—since this is a colorful French idiom—we could even try to find a similar English expression, such as: I have the blues. This is the functional approach. Since this method of translation conveys to us what the phrase really meant to the original speaker, it’s actually much more accurate in translating the meaning of the original than a strictly “literal” translation would be.

On the other hand, a very dynamic paraphrase will go to great lengths to make sure the phrase is understandable. A paraphrase of this French saying could be something like: I’m having a lousy day! This is definitely more expressive, but we have to be careful. The more freedom that’s taken in the paraphrase, the more the chance that accuracy will be sacrificed.

How does this actually work with Scripture? Let’s look at an example from Luke 9:44.

Let these words sink down into your ears; for the Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.

Listen to me and remember what I say. The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies.

The Message
Treasure and ponder each of these next words: The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into human hands.

Which of these most accurately communicates the original meaning to us? Have you ever tried to get someone’s attention by telling them: “Hey, let these words sink down into your ears”? We just don’t speak that way, do we? The literal translation may tell us something about Greek colloquialisms, but it doesn’t communicate the actual meaning as clearly as the other two. But then, was Jesus telling the disciples to treasure and ponder each of his words? You can see how the paraphrase embellishes the actual meaning of the text. The NLT, though, gives us a very clear reading of the passage and one which is easily understood in our common language. So, in this example, the NLT most accurately translates the meaning of the text.

But some protest that they like the more formal translations because they “sound like the Bible” to them. For these people, when the Bible reads a little awkwardly or uses language that sounds holy or spiritual, it feels like the Word of God. (One example is what some of us call ‘Yoda translations.’ [I first heard this description from Rick Mansfied over at This Lamp.] They’re called this because you can almost hear the familiar voice of the Star Wars character as you read the strange, backward sentence structure: “Fear not,” “Fret not yourself,” “From the fig tree learn its lesson,” etc. [examples from the ESV].)

Now, in one way, I wouldn’t want to argue with this perception because the best Bible for you is the one you’ll love and use. If this is merely a personal preference, that’s fine. But I also want us all to understand that this isn’t really a good way to evaluate a Bible version. You see, when the Bible was first written it didn’t sound like a religious text. To those who love the familiar cadence of traditional readings and word orders, the original Bible wouldn’t sound like the Bible! It was written in normal, everyday Hebrew and Greek, using common words and expressions. So if we want the Bible we’re reading to be as similar as possible to how the original Scriptures were read, they should be translated into common, everyday English.

Sometimes the literal translation may be a little cumbersome, but still understandable (as with “let these words sink down into your ears”). Sometimes the wording may just sound so odd that it inspires giggling, like calling Jesus a “winebibber” (Matthew 11:19 in the NKJV) or claiming that “the ants are a people not strong” (Proverbs 30:25 in the ESV, and notice again the strange, Yoda-like syntax).

Other times though, the “literal” wording actually obscures the true meaning. Continuing in Matthew 11:19, the NKJV tells us “wisdom is justified by her children.” What in the world is that supposed to mean? I’ve asked this many times of students, and I haven’t had one guess correctly (and they all had to guess). Compare that with the NLT reading: “wisdom is shown to be right by its results.” Isn’t this much more clear? Or what of the NASB’s statement from the Lord in Amos 4:6: “I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities.” Is the meaning clear in English? (Does it have something to do with oral hygiene?) Because the meaning is perfectly clear in it’s original Hebrew context. Is this more understandable (again from the NLT): “I brought hunger to every city”? We shouldn’t need someone to translate the translation for us!

So am I suggesting that formal, “literal” translations serve no purpose? Not at all! They can be very helpful, particularly for those who teach and need to do word studies or get the feel of the original structure of the text. But for general reading, the formal translations are usually too wooden and frequently obscure the flow of the passage. Paraphrases also can be useful by expressing the text in a completely new way that can be fresh and thought-provoking. But we shouldn’t rely on paraphrases to determine the precise meaning of a certain passage. It’s best—especially for teachers—to compare different kinds of translations when studying the Bible. But for general reading and studying, I recommend choosing a functional translation.

Our church uses the New Living Translation (NLT), and I haven’t found any other translation that combines accuracy and clarity so effectively. A good test when comparing translations is to read whole chapters in a book such as Romans or 1 Corinthians, first in one translation and then the other. As you read, see which one makes it easier to follow the flow of thought in the passage. You won’t always understand the concepts that are communicated in Scripture, but if you can’t grasp even the wording in the passage, then it’s really not doing you much good to be reading it! I was delighted when I saw how refreshingly easy the NLT was to understand without sacrificing the accuracy of the text. For a teacher, this means I don’t have to waste time explaining an unclear translation; I can devote that time to actually talking about the main points of the passage.

One final tip for this week. If you don’t already have a good study Bible I encourage you to invest in one. The best introductory study Bible I’ve found is the Life Application Study Bible, and it’s available in the NLT. I’ll write more next week about why this is important, but for now, the Life Application Study Bible has generally balanced notes and tons of in-text maps and charts. It will answer a lot of your questions as you’re reading, and it makes studying the Bible more fun. (If you’d like to see some of the features of this study Bible, just click on the book cover to the right.) Next week, we’ll start looking at some tips for digging into the Bible on your own.

(For a Spanish translation, I recommend the Nueva Traducción Viviente [NTV]. And for those who will be teaching or who have moved beyond a beginner’s study Bible, my favorite study Bible is the NLT Study Bible. By the way, I should clarify that I don’t receive any form of payment for products I recommend.)

How to study the Bible series:

Which Bible version should I use? [see above]

The first three rules of Bible study

Why do we have to “study” the Bible?

Where are we?: Getting a feel for the bigger story

You’ve got mail: Opening the letters to the churches

Building bridges: Cultural differences in the letters to the churches

Following the story: God and his people, part 1

The heart of the story: Jesus

Following the story: God and his people, part 2

Acting on Acts: How do we apply Acts to the church today?

Should Christians obey the Ten Commandments?: Christians and the Old Testament law

The psalms: Prayers to God that speak to us

Walking with the wise: Learning from the Bible’s poetic wisdom

The prophets: God’s messengers, calling his people back

Revelation: The story comes full circle

Related posts:

The NIV controversy, part 1

The NIV controversy, part 2

33 thoughts on “Which Bible version should I use?

  1. Hi Curt, let me start by saying that I love the way that our Lord is speaking to you on how to share all of these teaching to us. I always look forward reading these weekly blog, Now, I can sure relate to this week teaching – Which Bible version should I use? Just few years ago I was one that was kind of scare to read the Bible. Not only because I was new to faith but the Bibles that I may have tried to read in the past just weren’t clear to me, (the message was flying all over my head) Yes,I didn’t understand the stories because it wording. Then I was recommened to read “The Life Application Study Bible” and God speak so clear to me through it, I love it and the references that are included as you read just make it a whole lot clearer. I recommend it to all who wants to know God words and stories of the past,present and future in todays modern language.

    Saludos to everyone.

  2. Excellent post that clearly explains some of the major issues in selecting a Bible translation. I love the “Yoda” analogy. Sometimes it does feel like that when reading literal translations. I have recently began reading primarily out of the ESV and find it more readable than the NASB, although not nearly as readable as the NIV or NLT. I like your suggested approach to use a thought-for-thought translation for regular reading and a more literal translation in preparation for teaching. Thanks!

  3. Pingback: The King James Bible Debate « bibletalk101

  4. it does matter what kind of bible you use. You should use the KJV bile only. thats the only right bible to use. rember Jesus loves you

  5. Hi, Grace. I’m sorry you didn’t find this post helpful. I’d be happy to help if I can, but I need to know the question before I can try to answer it. 🙂 What exactly are you looking for?

  6. I see you posted more while I was responding. I agree that it matters what kind of Bible you use, but I don’t agree that the King James Version is the only right Bible for people to use. Why do you believe that?

  7. listen i go to a independent fundamental baptist church. and are preacher said there is only one bible and that is the KJV

  8. Also, i believe that it is the only right bible
    REMEBER JESUS LOVES YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. Grace, let me first ask about your comment that this post didn’t help you at all. It seems that you’re only looking for something to affirm what you already believe, and that you’re not really interested in considering any other perspectives. Is that true? If so, I’d suggest this is a dangerous attitude.

    Secondly, it sounds as if your faith is in your pastor, not in God or his Word. What if your pastor is wrong about all other translations of Scripture except for that single version? Do you believe that your pastor is infallible? Why do you believe that we should only use the King James Version?

    And, yes, I know that Jesus loves us. That’s a wonderful truth. But this post is on different translations of the Bible. There’s no reason to continue this exchange unless you’re willing to consider someone else’s viewpoints and discuss reasons for believing what we do about Bible translations.

  10. Go Curt Parton! I go to Evansville Masters Commission in Indiana. I have to write a research paper about diffrent translations, and you helped me very very much. Thank you for all that you do in the ministry God has placed you in.

  11. I agree with Miquela! I also go to Evansville Masters Commission and I am also doing said research paper. I am not that far into yet but when I get there, I will most certainly be looking to this page for information!

  12. Thanks, guys! I wish you the best with your research papers, and with the rest of your training. If anything here is a help to you, it makes it all worthwhile. Keep up your good work!

  13. Thank you for this post. I agree that the NLT is so much better for every day Bible reading than any other version. When my husband and I joined our church in August, the pastor gave us a copy of the NLT Life Application Study Bible, and I love it! It doesn’t answer all my questions, but that’s what the pastor is there for. 🙂

    I use the NASB version during worship services, though, because the pastor always reads from the NKJV, and those two translations are more similar. It makes it easier to follow along.

  14. Thanks, Mishael. I understand about following along during the church service. It’s difficult for many people to read from a translation that’s too different from the one the pastor is using. I’m curious why your pastor gives out NLTs but teaches from the NKJV. (Not implying he doesn’t have a good reason, just curious what the reason is.)

  15. Curt,
    I have always felt that the over regulated belief in only the KJV was unfounded. There was a reason that bible was created ; make a bible that the people in that day and age could understand. To believe that a bible made for people of that time is the ONLY correct translation is pretty silly. the protestant revolution on one front was to give the Bible to the people. To force people to then be aligned with a particular OLD bible is just as restrictive as the Catholic church that the Baptist and other protestant religions broke away from. It has almost become a cult type belief.

    Good luck on presenting thoughts to those who can not accept others thoughts.

  16. I’m so happy I found this article. I’m less confused now. Thank you for putting the effort to do this.

  17. Curt, You wrote a very interesting article but I am concerned about the omissions of the blood of Jesus, the word Lord, the word holy, Joseph being called the father of Jesus, and thousands of words omitted, half of the Lords prayer missing. Easy reading for me is not always the best.

  18. Thanks, Dan. Are you suggesting that someone tried to eliminate the blood of Jesus, Jesus as Lord, the holiness of God, the incarnation and the virgin birth from the more recent translations of Scripture?! Because, if that’s so, they did a really bad job of it! 🙂 You can pick any of the contemporary translations and find almost countless references to the blood of Jesus, the word Lord, the word holy (or synonyms of ‘holy’), Jesus as uniquely the Son of God, etc. Actually, most current translations bring out the deity of Christ more effectively and clearly than the King James Version (or the NKJV).

    You speak of thousands of words omitted (I have to assume you mean in recent translations because you didn’t specify where these words were omitted); this prompts the question: Words “omitted” as compared to what standard?

    My guess is you’re comparing all translations to either the King James Version or the Byzantine text-type. Are you aware that, with an incredibly small exception, the overwhelming consensus of New Testament textual scholars is that the modern translations are far more accurate than the KJV or NKJV? The Greek text used in translating the KJV was compiled from just a few Greek manuscripts that were readily available; now scholars have access to over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, many more thousands of very early translations and over a million quotations of the New Testament from the early church.

    Scholars can track the development of the different text-types, how and why they differ, and can show how the Byzantine text-type became artificially inflated (with passages such as John 5:3b-4 for example). In the 7th century, the Muslims overran all of the areas where Christians produced Greek manuscripts except the one area where the Byzantine text-type was dominant. Consequently, all of the very late manuscripts follow a Byzantine reading, while all the earliest and most valuable sources differ from it.

    You may believe that contemporary translations “omit” thousands of words, and that’s fine for you if you’re convinced. But I’d suggest stating such a view somewhat cautiously because you’d be arguing against virtually every New Testament textual scholar from the last century (and really even going back earlier than that). These scholars would explain that it’s actually the Byzantine text-type (and thus the KJV and the NKJV) that add words to the text, words that are not found in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. This is why practically every new translation of the Bible since the mid-1900s incorporates the scholarship from all of the manuscripts available to us rather than just one very late text-type (and why they differ from the reading of the KJV and the NKJV).

    One last thing. You wrote:

    Dan McCarty:

    Easy reading for me is not always the best.

    But you are criticizing not only the NIV or NLT but also such very formal translations as the NASB and the ESV. I would hardly refer to these translations as “easy reading”! If you’re willing to consider another view on these issues, I’d recommend The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? by James R. White. He addresses much more than the extreme KJV-only view, and gives a wealth of information and insight into the history of translations of Scripture and the process of translation, and he carefully evaluates all of the complaints from critics of the modern translations, including those you mentioned.


  19. Curt, it was in my heart to find the correct and proper information regarding the different versions/translations of the bible so that I may study and understand. Your written piece here is exactly what I prayed to be led to and might I add, I cannot speak of other written pieces you’ve done but this my friend was well written for me. God Bless.

  20. Curt, great insight. I never considered the version as being overly important but after reading your thoughts, I plan to research further. I stumbled upon your piece because I was searching for others who may have may have seen some red flags in regards to the LAB (the brand of study bible you recommend). I have the NIV-LAB, been reading it for years. I’ve noticed a handful of times in the commentary where “they”(LAB creators) have taken liberties, further expanding the scripture without citing their source. This can be misleading, especially to those new to the bible. I don’t have all the instances readily available but the one i stumbled upon today correlated to John20:7. LAB’s commentary reads “The graveclothes were left as if Jesus had passed right through them. The headpiece was still rolled up in the shape of a head, and it was at about the right distance from the wrappings that had enveloped Jesus’ body. A grave robber couldn’t possibly have made off with Jesus’ body and left the linens as if they were still shaped around it.” I’m going to assume you recognize the parts LAB appears to take liberties. Do you know of any place, maybe early church history, where there was that much detail about the burial clothing? “Strips of linen” and “folded (head) burial cloth” is what I see translated in the scripture, at this specific moment. Credibility is obviously very important, especially when Christ followers are trying to share the Word with non-believers. This specific point-in-time of the scripture has taken on more scrutiny as well, due to the Shroud of Turin debate. Long reply, I know. Any words of direction or enlightenment? Thx

  21. Hi, Gabriel, and thanks. (Sorry for the late response.) Regarding the Life Application Study Bible—or any similar study Bible—there are a few issues to discuss. The first issue is the expectations we have for such a resource, and what expectations we pass on to others. The notes in a study Bible are commentary, no more, no less. They can be incredibly useful, especially to those who aren’t equipped to study the Scriptures exhaustively themselves but, as with any other commentary, they aren’t infallible or inerrant. They aren’t part of the divinely-inspired Scripture, they are only the thoughts of scholars seeking to help us better understand the text.

    I’m sure you’re well aware of this, but we need to make sure the people we help (e.g. with study Bibles) are also very aware. Just as we shouldn’t look to one pastor or teacher as the standard and authority of biblical truth, so we shouldn’t look to one commentary or study Bible as an authoritative standard. But neither should we reject a pastor, teacher, commentary or study Bible because they present ideas with which we disagree. This only disqualifies them if we’re somehow expecting them to themselves be perfectly infallible or inerrant. As we read, we need to evaluate the insights of others (including study Bible notes) by the text of Scripture, and we need to teach others to do so too. We should expect to occasionally find views we disagree with, even from favorite teachers or resources.

    Concerning the lack of footnotes, I understand the desire to see just where and how commentators are coming up with certain insights. But study Bibles are trying to fit a basic biblical commentary—along with the text of Scripture and maps and charts, etc.—into a package that can be (relatively) easy to carry. If they included adequate footnotes, you’d have to be carrying a much larger Bible! It would just be impractical. For this depth of studying, you need to access actual biblical commentaries that can include things like footnotes, much more extensive evaluation of different views, and reasons for their conclusions.

    Finally, there are different views on this particular passage, but the interpretation expressed in the LASB note is not at all uncommon among biblical scholars. And they draw from the textual wording itself to defend this view. But, again, to examine and evaluate this position you’ll need to check out a number of commentaries. My main point in response (also long 🙂 ) is that we need teach people to use study Bibles the way they’re intended, and not look to them as definitive, authoritative interpretations of the scriptural text.


  22. Hi, Robert. I’m sorry for the late response to this. Somehow I missed your comment. I’ve been crazy busy with the relaunch of the church where I serve, and I’ve been neglecting this blog. I hope to devote more time to this in the near future. Regardless, I definitely want to help you have your own copy of the Word of God. A Bible is on the way to you.


Comments are closed.