Bible Translations

There are lots of good English translations of the Bible.  There are probably a few bad ones, as well.  As long as the translators stick to the basics and don't inject cult prejudice or try to make everything gender-neutral or call God 'Mother', I am for any version a person likes to read.  I could get by quite well with the King James.  The language, though, has changed, and sometimes the impact of a powerful passage can get lost in the oddly archaic familiarity.  This is something like what Lewis said in his foreword to the J.B. Philips paraphrase of the New Testament.  A good translation can give us a fresh look at something we already know. 

Take, for example, a very familiar verse, Luke 2:14, from the KJV, it reads:  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. 

Now look what the New International Version says, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favors rests".

The New King James Version translates it identically to the original King James, but the Holman Christian Standard Version says, "Glory to God in the highest heaven and peace on earth to people He favors." 

The English Standard Version and the New American Standard both read similarly, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those [or, men] with whom he is pleased."

There is nothing in those differing versions to change who Christ is or why He came into the world or the overall revelation of God's goodness and mercy.  The KJV and NKJV sound a little more "universal" in that they say "good will toward men" but that is really what the NIV says as well:  "to men on whom his favor rests" means that God's favor or His "good will" rests upon humanity.   The most literal reading of the passage is probably something like this — Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good pleasure.  But the Greek construction apparently points to the good pleasure or good will as belonging to God rather than to humanity which seems to be the object. 

I used to consider the KJV, the NASB, and the NIV as the versions to compare when teaching.  Because of Strong's Concordance and various word studies such as Vine's, the KJV was indispensable back in the pre-internet days for in-depth study.  The NASB was the most literal of the late 20th Century translations and the NIV was widely used and less clunky in reading than the NASB.   With modern software readily available and the vast resources of the internet, we need not be limited to one or two translations and the books we can fit on our shelf.

New translations are coming along all the time.  The Holman Christian Standard Version is, as you might suppose, a sort of proprietary translation and somewhat denominational in flavor.  Though it reads well and I use it, it seems rather Southern Baptist to me, NTTAWWT, but I doubt that it will ever be as revered as the KJV or have the reach of the NIV.  On the other hand, the English Standard Version does strike me as being potentially a "great" translation.  I have it in the free Bible Time software I downloaded from sourceforge.net — which is one reason I use it.  It saves me some typing.  But it also strikes me as having at least a little bit of the flow and resonance of the King James for public reading and memorization. 

I have heard different people malign different translations.  I have heard people claim that the King James Version is perfect — it is not.  Translators generally do the best they can to accurately convey the truth of the Greek and Hebrew texts that are available.  The important thing is to find a Bible you like and read it regularly.  In the end, it doesn't matter if you use a paraphrase or learn to read the original Greek because .... the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.  (John 14:26, ESV)