APO:Choosing a Bible  by Christian Research Institute

   There are several questions one should examine in selecting a
version of the Bible to use or give away. Here are a few of them:

   1) How do I intend to use it?

   For deeper study, fast reading, devotional reading or some
combination? A version for broader reading and certain memory work
should be in a vocabulary and style you are comfortable with and
understand easily. Using at least two translations (one for study, one
for other purposes) brings best growth and understanding for most
people. The study Bible should be more literal to the details and
actual form of the original, perhaps with notes and cross-references.
Consulting it AND a freer translation together is a helpful method.
This is because either type translation can lead to a wrong
understanding of the meaning of the original. Here is how.

   ANY Bible version should be tested by the question "Is it faithful
to the original text?" However, the question of fidelity can be divided
into two parts - transfer of the meaning and of the dynamics of the
original. Experienced translators John Beekman and John Callow in their
classic work, Translating the Word of God, explain that when a
translation transfers the MEANING it "conveys to the reader or hearer
the information that the original conveyed to its readers or hearers."
When a translation conveys the DYNAMIC force of the original, it "makes
a natural use of the linguistic structures of the RL (language of the
translation) and...the recipients of the translation understand the
message with ease." (pages 33, 44) This does not mean there will be no
ambiguous or puzzling statements at all. It does not mean that
difficulty in understanding HOW something is true or how to APPLY it
will be removed. The original readers had these problems as well.
Translations that seek to maintain the meaning closer to the word level
have more difficulty in capturing the dynamic force of the original or
in using the natural expression of English (which, of course differs
with time and locale, especially U.S. to Great Britain). Translations
toward the idiomatic or paraphrase side do better with the dynamics, as
a rule, but diminish the readers' ability to know "that's the way THEY
said it (in Greek or Hebrew)," or follow the nuances of the original
writers.

   Special care should be taken in use of Bible versions on either
extreme. Literal translations can mislead if one is unaware of the
significance of elements of form (grammar, style) or idiom (unique
expression) that are more like th original than English. Freer
translations introduce more interpretation (although all translation
demands interpretation) and sacrifice precision and consistency of
renderings. 2) What was the goal of the translator(s)?

   To reach a specific audience? To communicate particularly the force
and impact of the original like J.B. Phillips, or to be clear and vivid
like Ken Taylor? Often the preface will give this and other helpful
information. 3) Who did the translating?

   One man, a committee, or one man with a committee checking? A
committee translation is generally freer of biased theological
interpretations that can corrupt a translation but it will usually
sacrifice some in consistency and artistic, stylistic expression. 4)
What are the credentials and background of the translator(s)?

   Did he (they) have expertise in the appropriate language(s)? If done
by a committee, were they from the same denomination, similar ones, or
widely differing ones?

   One does not have to have complete answers to all of these questions
before using a Bible version. In fact, some of the less dependable ones
can have positive uses if one is aware of their deficiencies. The
subject of Bible translation is a complex one and the previous
questions far from exhaust all the considerations.The following brief
summaries evaluating specific versions are very cursory, and not meant
to be authoritative. The were produced by a comparison and combination
of the remarks of a number of evangelical scholars, and in some cases,
the personal observations of the author.

   KING JAMES (AUTHORIZED) VERSION (1611)

   Translated from the original languages by committee. Unexcelled in
literary quality, although now archaic. Does not reflect the best text
base on recent scholarship (some editions give explanatory notes on the
text).

   NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1970)

   From the original by interdenominational committee. Patterned after
American Standard Version of 1901. Excellent precision in handling of
verb-tenses but sometimes pedantic, awkward and lacking in style -
"wooden" say many. Literalness, careful work and good notes make it one
of the best study Bibles.

   THE MODERN LANGUAGE BIBLE (1969)

   Revision of the Berkeley Version (1945). Good balance of accuracy of
meaning with plain contemporary English. Helpful notes.

   JERUSALEM BIBLE

   Translated with reference to both the original and an earlier French
translation by Roman Catholic committee. Forceful but not stylisticly
consistent or fully idiomatic English. OT text not the best. Notes are
a substantial part of the work and are generally non-sectarian but
should be checked.

   NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

   From the original Greek (NT); revision of confraternity version
(based on Latin Vulgate) in the OT. Catholic Committee consulted with
Protestants in final stages. More conservative than JB but
introductions to sections and to individual books "moderately liberal
in tone" (Kubo and Specht, p. 164). Format differs with the publisher.

   NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

   From the original, by a large interdenominational but conservative
committee. Well balanced - good for study, faster reading, or public
reading. Based on reliable Greek text. Somewhat inconsistent in
modernizing terminology. Pleasing, very readable format (few
footnotes). Many feel it will become the most used Bible of the future,
especially for evangelicals.

   TODAY'S ENGLISH VERSION (Good News Bible)

   From the original. NT by one man, approved by committee. Aimed
particularly at English - as - second - language audience and those
with little formal education. Achieves its goal well - very readable,
good format. Translates dynamics well but not dependable for deeper
study if used by itself.

   NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

   From the original by interdenominational British committee. Exciting
literary style, very readable but with distinct British flavor and
idiom. Excellent for non-churched. Departures from the original text
and too much liberty in certain renderings make it undependable as a
study Bible.

   REVISED STANDARD VERSION (1946)

   Debatable whether more a revision of KJV or a fresh translation from
the original (by committee). Probably more the latter in NT. Preserves
some of KJV sound of "Bible English", but is somewhat modernized.
Accused by ultra-conservatives of deliberate "liberal" bias (along with
TEV and others) but has weathered the storm and is considered by some
church leaders as the best all-purpose translation. Adequate, though
not the best for deeper study in author's opinion.

   J.B. PHILLIPS' TRANSLATION

   From the original but definitely a paraphrase by J.B. Phillips, a
competent Greek scholar. More than any other, makes the Bible "live"
for educated or literary people, although in British expression. Does
not read like a translation. Provokes new insight and understanding
which should, however, be checked with more literal translations and by
deeper study. Excellent for the educated, unchurched person as well as
the thinking Christian.

   LIVING BIBLE

   Paraphrased essentially from the 1901 ASV by Ken Taylor but checked
by Greek, Hebrew scholars. Serves similar purpose as Phillips' but
reaches also to the less educated. Encourages Bible reading and helps
older Christians express their faith in contemporary terms. Definitely
not to be relied on for interpretations or study. Changes, sometimes
significant, made between editions.

   AMPLIFIED BIBLE

   Amplified Bible done from the originals. Neither a true translation
nor a paraphrase. This type version offers readers possible renderings
or interpretations and can be helpful for study or deepening
understanding. However, users must realize the original author had one
meaning in mind, determined by context and usage in that language, not
our personal preference or whim. These versions must not be substituted
for responsible deeper study.

   **** The following is an attempt to convey a chart from this article
you are reading. It looks a bit like a list, but the idea is to list
the different translations in the order of from the most literal to the
least literal (or paraphrase).

   -Interlinears

   --Word for Word -American Standard -King James

   --Literal -New American Standard -New International Version -Today's
English Version

   --Idiomatic -New English Version -Phillips'

   --Paraphrase -Living Bible

   SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR FURTHER STUDY --Bruce, F.F., THE ENGLISH
BIBLE. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. --Dennett, Herbert, A
GUIDE TO MODERN VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Chicago: Moody Press,
1965. --Hawthorne, G.F., HOW TO CHOOSE A BIBLE. Christianity Today,
Vol. 20, December 5, 1975, pp.7-10. --Kubo, Sakae and Walter Specht, SO
MANY VERSIONS?. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975 (Paperback). --WHICH
BIBLE IS BEST FOR YOU?, Eternity. Vol. 25, April, 1974, pp.27-31.

   Contributed by The Manna System

