Sometimes people ask me which Bible translations I recommend. Here is my advice, building on the insights of others.

Introductory Points

  • Textual variants: Since no original manuscript of any biblical book survives, every modern translation relies on ancient texts that are copies of the originals. These copies are not all identical. When they vary, how can we know which better represents the original? This is a huge topic. I will briefly say that (a) I am content that all common English translations are working from good texts, (b) I think that the Greek text that most modern translations use is probably even more accurate than the text that the KJV uses, and (c) no biblical doctrine hinges on any of the debated variants.
  • Translation philosophies: Another huge topic. My thoughts, briefly: (a) there is no such thing as a translation that does not also interpret—even the most “literal” ones cannot avoid doing so, (b) it is generally recognized that translations can either focus on retaining the grammatical structure of the original language and translating individual words consistently or focus on communicating the thought of original text in modern, ordinary speech, (c) all translations do some of both, with translations falling on a spectrum between the two goals, (d) there are advantages and disadvantages to both goals, (e) translations towards the thought-for-thought end of the spectrum tend to be somewhat more interpretive than those on the word-for-word end–but can also smooth out possible misunderstandings caused by an overly-“literal” approach, (f) there are other variables such as how translations handle words that could be understood as either masculine or generic, and (g) therefore, the most helpful thing for English readers to do is to compare a variety of translations that use a variety of translation philosophies, without getting hung up on trying to find the perfect translation.
  • Books about The Book: Many good books have been written about Bible translations, dealing in depth with the issues summarized above (and many more). Conservative Anabaptists who may be disinclined to trust these books now have a book published by one of their own that they should consider: The Story Behind the Versions: A Guide Through the Maze of English Translations, by Rodney Yoder (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Christian Light Publications, 2012). I have minor points of disagreement with Yoder, but am impressed that a book of this caliber has been published by “us.”

A Chart of English Bible Translations

  • This chart was created by Brent MacDonald, and is the best such chart that I have seen. Visit MacDonald’s website to learn more and ensure you see the latest version of his chart.
  • Note: “Word-for-word” is often called “formal equivalence” or, less accurately, “literal.” And “thought-for-thought” is often called “functional equivalence” or “dynamic equivalence.”

Basic Advice about Using Bible Translations

  1. Use a word-for-word translation for detailed Bible study and teaching. These will follow the vocabulary, sentence structure, and idioms of the Bible writers more closely. If you use the KJV as your primary translation, compare it with another word-for-word translation in modern English, such as the LEB, NASB/NASU, or—moving a little to the right on the chart above—the NAS20 or ESV.
  2. Compare the better thought-for-thought translations with your word-for-word translation. They will help explain what difficult passages might mean. They also communicate most essential biblical truths more clearly for the typical English reader, so are often better for evangelism or public reading. My favorites include the CSB, NIV, NET (available online, copyright-free, with extensive footnotes), and NLT (very interpretive, but often making good choices). 

    Notes: The most recent NIV (2011) is very different from the old NIV (1984). It now uses gender neutral language regarding humans (e.g. where KJV has “brothers,” it may have “brothers and sisters”). This has both benefits and drawbacks, but increases its usefulness when comparing translations. In many ways this update is more accurate and even more word-for-word than its predecessor, and my study has shown me that sometimes the new NIV reflects the biblical language better than the ESV does. (The opposite is also true.) Finally, note that the ESV and the CSB are very near each other on the chart above, despite the ESV being classed as word-for-word and CSB as thought-for-thought. This means that both translations should be seen as having hybrid goals and readers will benefit from comparing them with translations further away in both directions on the chart above.
  3. Do not quote a paraphrase as if it is the Bible. It is more like a commentary on the Bible. As with other commentaries, some are helpful in spots and some (such as TPT) are best avoided altogether.
  4. The translation our family uses most often is the ESV. Why? (1) It leans toward being a word-for-word translation but is still quite readable, (2) it is accurate enough to be trustworthy for general use, (3) it has an active publisher behind it (Crossway) that is producing a good selection of ESV-related study helps, (4) it has been adopted quite widely among conservative Anabaptists who see no need to hang onto the KJV and or the NKJV, and (5) it is one of the translations used most often in the church where we currently belong. Is the ESV as good as some of its promoters claim? No, it isn't. In fact, I think the NIV is actually a better choice for the typical American reader, particular if they did not grow up  in the church. But the ESV has worked well for our family.

That’s my informed opinion. But please read something.​