choosing a bible translation

Which Version?

by Daniel B. Wallace

Before the year 1881, you had three choices for an

English Bible translation: the kjv, the kjv, or the kjv.

Obviously, this is no longer the case. How did the

King James Version get dethroned? Which translation

is best today? Are any of the modern translations

faithful to the original?

What is a Faithful Translation?

Many people today think that a faithful translation of 
the Bible means a “word-for-word” translation. If 
the original has a noun, they expect a noun in the

translation. If the original has sixteen words, they 
don’t want to see seventeen in the translation. This 
type of translation is called “formal equivalence.”

The kjv, asv and nasb come the closest to this ideal.

On the other end of the spectrum is a “phrase-for-phrase” 
translation, also known as a “dynamic equivalence” or, 
more recently, as a “functional equivalence” translation. 
A dynamic equivalence translation is not as concerned

with the grammatical form of the original language, as it 
is with the meaning of the original. It allows more room 
for interpretation and is easier to understand.

The niv and the neb follow this philosophy.

The Difficulty of Translating a Language

Anyone who has learned a second language knows 
that a word-for-word translation is impossible much 
or most of the time. Idioms and colloquialisms in

a language need to be paraphrased to make sense 
in another language.

Even the kjv translators realized this. In a couple

of places in the Old Testament, the Hebrew text

literally reads, “God’s nostrils enlarged.” But, the

kjv translates this as, “God became angry”—which

is what the expression means. In Matthew 1:18 the

kjv says that Mary was found to be with child. But

the Greek is quite different and quite graphic: “Mary

was having it in the belly!” In many places in Paul’s

letters, the kjv reads, “God forbid!” But the original

has neither “God” nor “forbid.” Literally, it says, “May

it never be!” (as most modern translations render it).

Therefore, when we speak of a translation being

faithful to the original, we need to clarify the

question: Is it faithfulness to form? Or, faithfulness

to meaning? Sometimes faithfulness to one involves

lack of fidelity to the other. There are problems with

each of the translation philosophies. The kjv, with

its attempted fidelity to form, does not make sense

in some passages. (In 1611, these instances did not

make sense either). Likewise, The nasb often contains

wooden, stilted English.

On the other hand, functional equivalence translations

sometimes go too far in their interpretation of

a particular phrase. The niv, in eph 6:6, tells slaves

to “Obey (their masters) not only to win their favor.”

However, the word “only” is not in the Greek, and I

suspect that Paul did not mean to imply it either. This

reveals one of the problems with dynamic equivalence

translations: the translators don’t always know

whether their interpretation is correct. The addition of

one interpretively-driven word can change the entire

meaning of a clause or a passage.

Some versions don’t interpret—they distort. Some are

notorious for omitting references to Christ’s blood, or

for attempting to deny his deity. In these instances,

the translators are neither faithful to the form or the

meaning. They have perverted the Word of God.

Yet, functional equivalence translators who are

honest with the text often make things very clear.

In phil 2:6, for example, the niv tells us that Jesus

was “in [his] very nature God.” But most formal

equivalence translations state that he was in the

form of God. The problem with these formally correct

translations is that they are misleading: the Greek

word for “form” here means essence or nature.

A formal equivalence translation lets the reader

interpret for himself or herself. However, the reader

often does not have the background information

or the tools to interpret accurately. The net result

is that he or she runs the risk of misunderstanding

the text, simply because their translation was not

clear enough.

On the other hand, a functional equivalence

translation is usually clear and quite understandable.

But if the translators missed the point of the original

(either intentionally or unintentionally) they may

communicate an idea foreign to the biblical text.

Which Translation Is Best?

To the question: Which translation is best?—
There can be no singular answer. I suggest 
that every Christian who is serious about studying 
the Bible own at least two translations. At least one 
formal equivalence (word-for-word) translation and 
one functional equivalence (phrase-for-phrase) 
translation. It would be even better to have two 
good functional equivalence translations because in 
this type of translation, the translator is also the 
interpreter. If the translator’s interpretation is correct,
it can only clarify the meaning of the text; if it is 
incorrect, then it only clarifies the interpretation of the 
translator!

The King James Version (kjv) and

The New King James Version (nkjv)

The kjv has with good reason been termed, “the

noblest monument of English prose” (rsv preface).

Above all its rivals, the kjv has had the greatest

impact in shaping the English language. It is a literary

masterpiece. But, lest anyone wishes to revere it

because it was “good enough for Jesus,” or some such

nonsense, we must remember that the kjv of today is

not the kjv of 1611. It has undergone three revisions,

incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Even with

all these changes, much of the evidence from new

manuscript discoveries has not been incorporated.

The kjv was translated from later manuscripts that

are less accurate to the original text of the Bible.

Furthermore, there are over 300 words in the kjv

that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. If one

wishes to use a Bible that follows the same Greek and

Hebrew texts as the kjv, I recommend the New King

James Version (nkjv).

Revised Standard Version (rsv)

and New Revised Standard Version

(nrsv)

The rsv was completed in 1952 and was intended

to be, in part, a revision of the kjv. Its attempt to

be a fairly literal translation makes its wording still

archaic at times. The nrsv follows the same principle

of translation, though it has been updated based on

new manuscript discoveries, exegetical insights, and

linguistic theories. Much of the difficult wording has

been made clearer, and gender-inclusive language

has been incorporated. At times, this is very helpful;

at other times, it is misleading.

The American Standard Version

(asv) and The New American

Standard Bible (nasb)

Like the rsv, the asv and nasb were intended to be

a revision of the kjv. However, there are three major

differences between the rsv and the nasb: (1) the nasb

is less archaic in its wording; (2) its translators were more

theologically conservative than the rsv translators; and

(3) because of the translators’ desire to adhere as closely

as possible to the wording of the original, the translation

often contains stilted and wooden English.

New English Bible (neb) and the

Revised English Bible (reb)

The neb was completed in 1971, after a quarter

of a century of labor. It marks a new milestone in

translation: it is not a revision of the kjv, nor of any

other version, but a brand new translation.

It is a phrase-for-phrase translation. Unfortunately,

sometimes the biases of the translators creep into

the text. The reb follows the same pattern as the neb:

excellent English, though not always faithful to the

Greek and Hebrew.

New International Version (niv) &

Today’s New International Version

(tniv)

The niv was published in 1978. It may be considered

a counterpart to the neb. (The neb is strictly a British

product, while the niv is an international product).

It is more of a phrase-for-phrase translation than

a word-for-word translation. The translators were

generally more conservative than those who worked

on the neb. I personally consider it the best

phrase-for-phrase translation available today.

However, its major flaw is its simplicity of language.

The editors wanted to make sure it was easy to read.

In achieving this goal, they often sacrificed accuracy.

In the New Testament, sentences are shortened,

subordination of thought is lost, and conjunctions

are often deleted.

The tniv is to the niv what the nrsv is to the rsv.

Gender-inclusive language is used, and specific

terminology is clarified (e.g., instead of “the Jews,”

the tniv will read “the Jewish leaders,” and

when “Christ” is used as a title, is substituted

for “Messiah”). This is usually helpful, but such

interpretations built into a translation can at times

be misleading.

There are pros and cons of

each philosophy of translation

New Living Translation (nlt)

The nlt was first published in 1996. The nlt is a functional 
equivalence translation, which focuses on the thoughts of 
the biblical authors, rather than their actual words. The 
translators of the nlt have gone to great lengths to convey 
the meaning of the text. Although this is helpful, it often

results in large interpretive decisions being made for the 
reader.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (hcsb)

The hcsb, first published in 1999, uses a translational 
philosophy called “optimal equivalence.” Where a word-for-word 
translation is not clear in English, they will opt for a phrase-for-phrase 

translation.

The translation incorporates new manuscript discoveries, 
as well as contains many important translational footnotes. 
The hcsb is a nice alternative to choosing between a formal 
equivalence and dynamic equivalence translation.

English Standard Version (esv)

The esv, published in 2001, is the newest and most 
up-to-date formal equivalent translation. The esv has 
eliminated the stilted English of translations like the  
nasb, while maintaining the literary excellence of

translations like the kjv. Even though the esv is a new 
translation, it maintains some of the theological terms 
that have systematically developed in English (e.g., 
justification, sanctification and propitiation). The esv 
 has also consistently translated specific terms in the 
original language to make theological developments easier 
to follow, and English concordance searches more 
accurate. Like the kjv, it has many unforgettable 
expressions, suitable for memorizing.

New English Translation (net)

The net Bible was published in 2005. The net has all 
the earmarks of a great translation. At times, it is more 
accurate than the nasb, more readable than the

niv, and more elegant than either. It is clear and 
eloquent, while maintaining the meaning of the original. 
In addition, the notes are a genuine gold mine of

information, unlike those found in any other 
translation. The net aims to be gender-neutral. The 
 net Bible is the Bible behind the bibles. It’s the one that

many modern translators use to help them work through 
the original language and express their meaning in literate 
English. I would highly recommend that each 
English-speaking Christian put this Bible on 
their shopping list.

New World Translation

Finally, a word should be said about the New World 
Translation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Due to the 
sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of 
genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New 
World Translation is by far the worst translation in 
English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in 
most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being

terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a “sacred 
cow” is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, 
the Jehovah’s Witnesses twist the text and resort

to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it 
combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros.

Conclusions

In summary, I would suggest that each English-speaking 
Christian own at least an rsv, niv, and net. For someone 
who wishes to study the Bible, an esv, kjv and neb would 
also make good additions to their library. And then, make 
sure that you read the book!

An earlier version of this article was previously published on Bible.org

under the title “Why So Many Versions?” (Biblical Studies Press, 1998).

For more information on the history of the King James Version of the

Bible see Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible

and the Revolution It Inspired by Benson Bobrick Also see God’s

Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicolson