Bible Translations (Help)

[DiscipleJimmy]

I am relatively a new Christian, that is, having decided to follow Christ and learn how to follow Him. I used to have a 1984 NIV long ago when I was playing pretend. Now I’m trying to find a translation that would be my daily driver. Was trying to find a NIV 1984 life application study Bible. Bought a couple for $20-30 in good condition with promise of no writing or highlighting which wasn’t the case and used-like new are upwards $100+

So I like the NIV 84 because it keeps the traditional masculine translation similar to the ESV and it’s highly readable like the CSB. However I find the ESV a little difficult to read. I don’t like the translation choices of the 2011 NIV.

So here is my dilemma. Every translation claims to be highly accurate…yet differ from each other. I want a translation that is similar to the 84” NIV that is still in print. But I’m not finding any and I find it odd that the progressive movement again picking up steam in the early 2005 and then 2011 decided to well…now seems like NASB 2020, CSB, NET and others following suit. Im wondering how long the rest of the translation follow suit into catering to society.

So any help in helping me find a translation similar to NIV. Im just tired. I like the NIV 84” then recently read an article about translation errors in Genesis about verbs creating animals or garden and something about eastern mythology sea beasts or something. Does truth no longer exist or is everything subjective and translations these days are about caving to society to protect the publishers pockets?

Honestly asking for help and understanding. Im thinking of rebinding my NIV life application Bible and Thats a little pricey, but I don’t want to rebind something full of errors? Or unsound doctrine?

 

[davejonescue]

I may not be the best to comment on this, but as a new believer, the only advice I would potentially give is to use the standard translation your church uses. In my opinion this is going to pay much larger dividends than going down the rabbit hole of translations and textual criticism when there are probably much more important issues to focus on early in your walk. With that being said, you will find criticism on just about every single translation. There is even criticism about the Hebrew and Greek. Meaning, you may have a difficult time finding a unanimous consensus about a particular translation that says "this is the one."

Also, if the 1984 NIV is your go-to, you can still find pretty decent used ones on Abebooks, Amazon, and Ebay for around $20-$100. You can start buying a copy every payday, or month, and stocking up, until you have 20-30 copies. There is nothing wrong with finding a translation that works for you, and many regard the 1984 as a good one, and sticking with it your whole life. The church I first attended almost 20 years ago used the NKJV. I still use the NKJV to this day, and, most likely will until I meet the Lord.

 

[paranymph]

I am relatively a new Christian, that is, having decided to follow Christ and learn how to follow Him. I used to have a 1984 NIV long ago when I was playing pretend. Now I’m trying to find a translation that would be my daily driver. Was trying to find a NIV 1984 life application study Bible. Bought a couple for $20-30 in good condition with promise of no writing or highlighting which wasn’t the case and used-like new are upwards $100+

So I like the NIV 84 because it keeps the traditional masculine translation similar to the ESV and it’s highly readable like the CSB. However I find the ESV a little difficult to read. I don’t like the translation choices of the 2011 NIV.

So here is my dilemma. Every translation claims to be highly accurate…yet differ from each other. I want a translation that is similar to the 84” NIV that is still in print. But I’m not finding any and I find it odd that the progressive movement again picking up steam in the early 2005 and then 2011 decided to well…now seems like NASB 2020, CSB, NET and others following suit. Im wondering how long the rest of the translation follow suit into catering to society.

So any help in helping me find a translation similar to NIV. Im just tired. I like the NIV 84” then recently read an article about translation errors in Genesis about verbs creating animals or garden and something about eastern mythology sea beasts or something. Does truth no longer exist or is everything subjective and translations these days are about caving to society to protect the publishers pockets?

Honestly asking for help and understanding. Im thinking of rebinding my NIV life application Bible and Thats a little pricey, but I don’t want to rebind something full of errors? Or unsound doctrine?

Is your concern about the CSB using "gender-neutral" language? See this article:

Is the CSB Really Gender-Neutral? - CBMW

A recent article for The Atlantic online claims that the Christian Standard Bible is a gender-inclusive bible. Unfortunately, the article misrepresents the CSB and may be intending to create controversy at the Southern Baptist Convention meeting this week in Phoenix. To set the record straight...

cbmw.org

The CSB is more readable than the ESV. If you decline the CSB, I'd say your best option is the NKJV.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I think the CSB would be closest to the NIV

 

[Frisian Gardener]

You can also try looking at brick-and-mortar used bookstores near you.

 

[TheInquirer]

Another vote for CSB

 

[JRW11B]

Yet another vote for the CSB.

 

[DiscipleJimmy]

I’ll definitely look into the CSB. Thanks guys or as CSB and NIV will say… Thanks people…

 

[Jake]

I grew up in the NIV 84. I left it for a while and it does have its quirks, but I've come to appreciate it more, especially for narrative sections of the Old Testament. I found some good quality copies of the NIV 84 (and 78) at a used bookstore. It was a good selling edition so those are plentiful.

I agree with others that the widely available modern edition which is closest to the NIV 84 is the CSB. I don't like its renderings of poetry and wisdom literature as well, and it is slightly more gender inclusive, but nothing problematic.

A more obscure, but in print, option is the Evangelical Heritage Version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Heritage_Version
It was made by confessional Lutherans (WELS and ELS) as an attempt to be a "new" NIV 84 after it went out of print. I haven't read from it extensively but what I've seen is solid.

 

[Rom]

This is not terribly pertinent to the OP, but I was converted under the NIV 84, and so will ever be grateful for it as the first revelation that I had of the Lord Jesus. I had read the Bible here and there before, but it came in power under the preached Word through the NIV.

I no longer use it for various reasons. But when I remember it, I am always brought back to my first heady days with Christ where every page of the Bible was a wondrous revelation of him, and something to be intensely devoured. Thinking on those days reminds me of our Lord's admonition to Ephesus: 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

May we continue in the love of espousals we have known with him.

 

[Alex Moore]

Hi Jimmy, I'm delighted to hear that you're walking with the Lord! Before suggesting an English translation, I would recommend you keep two points in mind.

First, that certain portions of holy scripture are difficult to understand, and that this is not necessarily due to the quality of a given translation, but rather, to the underlying text itself. The apostle Paul, for example, lays out many concepts in his epistles which are explained in lengthy, (and what we may refer to today as) run-on sentences. There are also field-specific terms used throughout the Bible, for temple instruments, architectural features, fishing, agriculture, etc. As well as precise soteriological terminology, like justification, sanctification, or propitiation.

A biblical translation ought to convey these concepts and words accurately to the reader, and to avoid interpreting, or smoothing over, the text as much as possible. The more 'dynamic' (or, thought-for-thought) the translation, the more human assumptions enter the text. This is not to say that man's interpretations are always wrong, but simply to recognize the reality inherent to dynamic equivalent translations (e.g., NLT, NIV, MSG).

Secondly, the Lord intends, first and foremost, that we learn to understand the scriptures in a communal setting, as part of the church. The most important scriptural reading you intake each week is on the Lord's day, hearing your pastor(s) herald the word. This is the primary way that the Lord has determined to convey his words to the hearts of his people.

Translations available in a vulgar tongue (e.g., English, Spanish, German) are an absolute blessing from God, and edify us throughout the week. However, our expectation when reading privately, should not be complete and total ease of comprehension. Again, certain portions of the Bible are just plain difficult to understand. This is not a problem in need of fixing, but an eternal truth in need of growing into. Within the word, there is milk, and there is meat. So, if something in a non-NIV translation does not make immediate sense, do not be discouraged; you are not alone. I am right there with you.

Having clarified this, I would strongly recommend a formal equivalence (or, word-for-word) translation. In English today, these include: the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Also, due to the ever-changing nature of modern textual and translational approaches, as you mentioned, I would also highly recommend using a translation from the traditional text, meaning, one rendered wholly from the Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts. These include the KJV and the NKJV.

Now, for reasons of maximal accuracy, literary beauty, and ecclesiastical responsibility, I would encourage English-speaking Christians to use the KJV. The NKJV is an excellent translation, however, it is comparatively inferior to its predecessor in these areas.

To reiterate, if something does not make sense during study, it is okay. Seek explanation from your pastor, and from those men more mature in the faith, whether they be local brethren, or reliable, reformed commentators of the past. Do not assume everything will make immediate sense. We grow into the scriptures throughout our Christian race.

In closing, I would be more than happy to clarify any one of these points further, provide resource links so that you can read more about the topic on your own, if desired, or answer any follow-up questions you may have. I pray that this is helpful. Grace and peace, brother!

 

[DiscipleJimmy]

Hi Jimmy, I'm delighted to hear that you're walking with the Lord! Before suggesting an English translation, I would recommend you keep two points in mind.

First, that certain portions of holy scripture are difficult to understand, and that this is not necessarily due to the quality of a given translation, but rather, to the underlying text itself. The apostle Paul, for example, lays out many concepts in his epistles which are explained in lengthy, (and what we may refer to today as) run-on sentences. There are also field-specific terms used throughout the Bible, for temple instruments, architectural features, fishing, agriculture, etc. As well as precise soteriological terminology, like justification, sanctification, or propitiation.

A biblical translation ought to convey these concepts and words accurately to the reader, and to avoid interpreting, or smoothing over, the text as much as possible. The more 'dynamic' (or, thought-for-thought) the translation, the more human assumptions enter the text. This is not to say that man's interpretations are always wrong, but simply to recognize the reality inherent to dynamic equivalent translations (e.g., NLT, NIV, MSG).

Secondly, the Lord intends, first and foremost, that we learn to understand the scriptures in a communal setting, as part of the church. The most important scriptural reading you intake each week is on the Lord's day, hearing your pastor(s) herald the word. This is the primary way that the Lord has determined to convey his words to the hearts of his people.

Translations available in a vulgar tongue (e.g., English, Spanish, German) are an absolute blessing from God, and edify us throughout the week. However, our expectation when reading privately, should not be complete and total ease of comprehension. Again, certain portions of the Bible are just plain difficult to understand. This is not a problem in need of fixing, but an eternal truth in need of growing into. Within the word, there is milk, and there is meat. So, if something in a non-NIV translation does not make immediate sense, do not be discouraged; you are not alone. I am right there with you.

Having clarified this, I would strongly recommend a formal equivalence (or, word-for-word) translation. In English today, these include: the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Also, due to the ever-changing nature of modern textual and translational approaches, as you mentioned, I would also highly recommend using a translation from the traditional text, meaning, one rendered wholly from the Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts. These include the KJV and the NKJV.

Now, for reasons of maximal accuracy, literary beauty, and ecclesiastical responsibility, I would encourage English-speaking Christians to use the KJV. The NKJV is an excellent translation, however, it is comparatively inferior to its predecessor in these areas.

To reiterate, if something does not make sense during study, it is okay. Seek explanation from your pastor, and from those men more mature in the faith, whether they be local brethren, or reliable, reformed commentators of the past. Do not assume everything will make immediate sense. We grow into the scriptures throughout our Christian race.

In closing, I would be more than happy to clarify any one of these points further, provide resource links so that you can read more about the topic on your own, if desired, or answer any follow-up questions you may have. I pray that this is helpful. Grace and peace, brother!

Thank you. I have been wrestling with this in prayer. I read multiple translations online to compare text and use Blue Letter Bible for word studies. I also research early Church thoughts on particular subjects to see what the early Church interpretation of a passage was compared to today. As well as archaeology studies and the likes.

But While online bibles are nice…theres something…quite can’t explain it…sitting down with a paper copy of a Bible and reading it. So I was just trying to find a good solid physical copy and the NIV ‘84 fits my reading level and the life application study Bible is really good. Problem is..it’s not in print any more lol.

My thought was. Pick one bible. Something I’ll read, I can understand it. Because in reality my walk with God is really just beginning. I spent over 4-5 months battling which one is more accurate, which one can I read and understand, and I realize theres no 100% accurate English translation. Even the 2011 gender inclusive NIV claims to be an accurate translation faithfully translated from Hebrew Greek.

The uncertainty, the frustration, the headaches. They aren’t fruits of the spirit. Now while im not academically inclined, or nuanced in the Greek/hebrew I do know the NIV 84 is a solid translation and as I prayed asking which translation I should use as a physical primary Bible. I kept being drawn back to the NIV 84 I have. So I resolved on my heart to make thst my primary. Maybe it’s a little milky translation. But I’m in jt. I memorized John 14:21 NIV 1984 within a week. But took me over 3 weeks to memorize ESV Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, He it is who loves me.
Now idk why but my brain wasn’t processing the He it is, part.

So is this okay?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I'm a little late to the party here but a few thoughts:

First, I want to note that I don't think the issues with the NIV 2011 are anywhere nearly as bad as what people say. It is a good translation, though not perfect.

Second, if you want to get something newer that is in print, I highly recommend the CSB. It is incredibly modern and readable while retaining accuracy which is quite close to something like the ESV. I have used it quite a lot the last couple of years after many years with the ESV and I can't say enough good things about it. It also does not go as far as the NIV 2011 on gender language, and I think what they did do with regard to gender language was not just acceptable but needed in light of how English has changed. It is incredibly well-done.

While I appreciate the KJV and those of our brethren on here and elsewhere who promote it, I have to disagree with those who would push you to use it as your primary Bible. It is not modern English and it is not any more accurate than any of the fantastic modern translations we have today. If you want to use it that is fine, but please do not feel a burden that you must do so, particularly if you find it challenging.

Lastly, if you want to stick with the 1984, of course that is fine! It is a great translation and the Lord has used it and will continue to use it.

I understand the stress of wrestling with translation decisions brother, but the most important thing is not which translation you are reading but the fact that you are reading it. The Lord can work around the imperfections of whichever translation you choose to sanctify you and bring forth good fruit.

 

[DiscipleJimmy]

Thank you. I decided to go with the ESV.

 

[Seek_First]

Early in my life, I also used NIV (not sure which one) - I think you will enjoy the ESV brother.
I currently use ESV (study), my church uses ESV...
I also like to "read" the newer LSB - and use that as my "small" daily-carry NT/Prov/Psalms.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I personally find it helpful to use 2 study Bibles. I use both the Reformation Study Bible and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible. Both have slightly different emphasis which nicely compliment one another. The RSB has fuller study notes but the RHSB has notes to help you meditate on each chapter of the scriptures. It also has a very helpful section on how to grow in grace as a Christian.

 

[B.L.]

A ramble...

When I was a new believer my first Bible was the NIV 84 and I eventually migrated for no good well thought out reason (back then) to the NKJV and then to the KJV. Around this time the translation wars started to brew in my circles with a battalion of battle hardened KJVers on one side and a battalion of new young ESVers on the other side. For a while the pitched battles remained a stalemate until the KJV side started to lose ground to the marketing machine called Crossway. I took the neutral side throughout all of these skirmishes (though partial to the KJV), but did take a little shrapnel here and there in the crossfire. When the NIV 2011 came out and the NIV started to gain a renewed following of sorts veterans in my circles from the KJV vs ESV war had a common foe and the artillery and rocket fire commenced yet again.

My personal opinion is the strength of having multiple solid English translations (we are indeed blessed) is also a weakness (and arguably a bit of a curse). Yes, one of my favorite pastimes is to read the Bible in various translations and I've benefited greatly from the fresh rendering of old scripture passages, but the lack of a single common translation in use by the English-speaking world is unfortunate. I see it on display in Bible studies; I see it in the pews on the Lord's Day; I see it in my children's private Christian schooling; I even see it in my own reading and scripture memorization habits. As translations go, we've got great breadth but have sacrificed familiarity and depth.

Over the past 20 years this is how my Top 3 translations have ranked by use:

As a baby.....................(1) NIV 84, (2) KJV, (3) NKJV
As a toddler................(1) KJV, (2) NKJV, (3) ESV
As a youth...................(1) KJV, (2) ESV, (3) NIV 2011
As a teenager.............(1) ESV), (2) KJV, (3) NIV 2011
As a young adult......(1) ESV, (2) KJV, (3) VARIOUS [NLT, NIV, NASB, NKJV]
As a middle aged......(1) KJV, (2) ESV, (3) VARIOUS [NLT, NIV, NASB, NRSV]
Presently.......................(1) KJV, (2) ESV, (3) LSB & NRSV
Future Forecast..........(1) KJV, (2) LSB, (3) ESV

If I were to give my younger self some advice it would be to pick a primary and secondary translation and stick with it through the various child development stages (spiritually speaking). My primary would be word for word and my secondary would be thought for thought. I would dig deep using the former and use the latter as an aid to comprehension. I would also resist the urge to flirt with the latest translation update(s) that are bound to keep coming out. While language is dynamic and though improvements can be made here and there, it's just not worth getting swept away by the latest publishing house's marketing blitz. Further, I would resist the urge to spend a small fortune getting a Bible rebound until I was firmly settled on what my primary translation might be for the long haul.

 

[WithinThePale]

Now, for reasons of maximal accuracy, literary beauty, and ecclesiastical responsibility, I would encourage English-speaking Christians to use the KJV. The NKJV is an excellent translation, however, it is comparatively inferior to its predecessor in these areas.

Could you expand on the 'ecclesiastical responsibility' component?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

If I were to give my younger self some advice it would be to pick a primary and secondary translation and stick with it through the various child development stages (spiritually speaking). My primary would be word for word and my secondary would be thought for thought. I would dig deep using the former and use the latter as an aid to comprehension. I would also resist the urge to flirt with the latest translation update(s) that are bound to keep coming out. While language is dynamic and though improvements can be made here and there, it's just not worth getting swept away by the latest publishing house's marketing blitz. Further, I would resist the urge to spend a small fortune getting a Bible rebound until I was firmly settled on what my primary translation might be for the long haul.

This is excellent advice for everyone.

 

[DiscipleJimmy]

A ramble...

When I was a new believer my first Bible was the NIV 84 and I eventually migrated for no good well thought out reason (back then) to the NKJV and then to the KJV. Around this time the translation wars started to brew in my circles with a battalion of battle hardened KJVers on one side and a battalion of new young ESVers on the other side. For a while the pitched battles remained a stalemate until the KJV side started to lose ground to the marketing machine called Crossway. I took the neutral side throughout all of these skirmishes (though partial to the KJV), but did take a little shrapnel here and there in the crossfire. When the NIV 2011 came out and the NIV started to gain a renewed following of sorts veterans in my circles from the KJV vs ESV war had a common foe and the artillery and rocket fire commenced yet again.

My personal opinion is the strength of having multiple solid English translations (we are indeed blessed) is also a weakness (and arguably a bit of a curse). Yes, one of my favorite pastimes is to read the Bible in various translations and I've benefited greatly from the fresh rendering of old scripture passages, but the lack of a single common translation in use by the English-speaking world is unfortunate. I see it on display in Bible studies; I see it in the pews on the Lord's Day; I see it in my children's private Christian schooling; I even see it in my own reading and scripture memorization habits. As translations go, we've got great breadth but have sacrificed familiarity and depth.

Over the past 20 years this is how my Top 3 translations have ranked by use:

As a baby.....................(1) NIV 84, (2) KJV, (3) NKJV
As a toddler................(1) KJV, (2) NKJV, (3) ESV
As a youth...................(1) KJV, (2) ESV, (3) NIV 2011
As a teenager.............(1) ESV), (2) KJV, (3) NIV 2011
As a young adult......(1) ESV, (2) KJV, (3) VARIOUS [NLT, NIV, NASB, NKJV]
As a middle aged......(1) KJV, (2) ESV, (3) VARIOUS [NLT, NIV, NASB, NRSV]
Presently.......................(1) KJV, (2) ESV, (3) LSB & NRSV
Future Forecast..........(1) KJV, (2) LSB, (3) ESV

If I were to give my younger self some advice it would be to pick a primary and secondary translation and stick with it through the various child development stages (spiritually speaking). My primary would be word for word and my secondary would be thought for thought. I would dig deep using the former and use the latter as an aid to comprehension. I would also resist the urge to flirt with the latest translation update(s) that are bound to keep coming out. While language is dynamic and though improvements can be made here and there, it's just not worth getting swept away by the latest publishing house's marketing blitz. Further, I would resist the urge to spend a small fortune getting a Bible rebound until I was firmly settled on what my primary translation might be for the long haul.

Good advice on choosing two translations. I have chosen ESV and NIV 1984 text. It’s been doing me good so far

 

[Alex Moore]

Could you expand on the 'ecclesiastical responsibility' component?

Certainly. The people of God are the caretakers of the holy scriptures—the Jews under the old covenant, and the church under the new. 'What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1–2).'

From its inspiration by the Spirit, to the copying of manuscripts, to the production of foreign language translations, to the collation of manuscripts, to the printed editions of Hebrew and Greek testaments, God has entrusted the work, care, and propagation of the Bible to the church. And this has always been his chosen means—the Spirit of God, speaking to the people of God, through the word of God.

'As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever (Is. 59:21).'

To use the English language as an example (though this same pattern may be seen in the handling of the original tongues of Hebrew and Greek), the Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, and finally King James Bible, form a successive line of English translations, produced by the church, for the church, all while confessing the scriptures' verbal, plenary inspiration, and providential preservation. This doctrine was best articulated by the post-Reformation era confessions, namely, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, which all agree and read as follows:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical (1.8).

This traditional, ecclesiastical (meaning, of the church) text, along with its translations, were used up until the latter half of the twentieth century, when critical text based (as well as dynamic equivalent) translations came to prominence. These translations are products of academia and large publishing houses, rather than those of the church. At this time, the role of the church shifted from caretaker to consumer base. Hence, the absolute glut of current English translations.

Throughout history, the initial need for a new translation, as well as its continued maintenance, was determined by the church, and the church was solely responsible for the version's production. Now, however, academia and big publishing determine when the church is ready for a 'New and Improved' Bible, resulting in dozens of Greek critical text editions (e.g., Nestle–Aland, now on its 29th edition, with several more already planned), and hundreds of translations (e.g., English Standard Version's 2001, [unannounced] 2002, 2007, 2011, 2016, and 2025 revisions, among various other ecumenical editions).

These contemporary versions (RSV, NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV, MSG, CSB, LSB, etc.) are critical text based, and copyrighted by publishing houses which profit from the words of the text, enforcing usage limits and copyright infringement laws. In short, these corporations, over against the church, now assume active ownership of the scriptures.

Something like the KJV, on the other hand, is traditional text based, produced by the church (ecclesiastical), and in the public domain throughout the world, except in the UK where the Crown retains certain printing and distribution rights. This allows for free worldwide transmission and usage of the Bible, while providing centralized standardization of its text, for the English-speaking church.

I hope this helps! Grace and peace.

 

[iainduguid]

Certainly. The people of God are the caretakers of the holy scriptures—the Jews under the old covenant, and the church under the new. 'What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1–2).'

From its inspiration by the Spirit, to the copying of manuscripts, to the production of foreign language translations, to the collation of manuscripts, to the printed editions of Hebrew and Greek testaments, God has entrusted the work, care, and propagation of the Bible to the church. And this has always been his chosen means—the Spirit of God, speaking to the people of God, through the word of God.

'As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever (Is. 59:21).'

To use the English language as an example (though this same pattern may be seen in the handling of the original tongues of Hebrew and Greek), the Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, and finally King James Bible, form a successive line of English translations, produced by the church, for the church, all while confessing the scriptures' verbal, plenary inspiration, and providential preservation. This doctrine was best articulated by the post-Reformation era confessions, namely, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, which all agree and read as follows:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical (1.8).

This traditional, ecclesiastical (meaning, of the church) text, along with its translations, were used up until the latter half of the twentieth century, when critical text based (as well as dynamic equivalent) translations came to prominence. These translations are products of academia and large publishing houses, rather than those of the church. At this time, the role of the church shifted from caretaker to consumer base. Hence, the absolute glut of current English translations.

Throughout history, the initial need for a new translation, as well as its continued maintenance, was determined by the church, and the church was solely responsible for the version's production. Now, however, academia and big publishing determine when the church is ready for a 'New and Improved' Bible, resulting in dozens of Greek critical text editions (e.g., Nestle–Aland, now on its 29th edition, with several more already planned), and hundreds of translations (e.g., English Standard Version's 2001, [unannounced] 2002, 2007, 2011, 2016, and 2025 revisions, among various other ecumenical editions).

These contemporary versions (RSV, NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV, MSG, CSB, LSB, etc.) are critical text based, and copyrighted by publishing houses which profit from the words of the text, enforcing usage limits and copyright infringement laws. In short, these corporations, over against the church, now assume active ownership of the scriptures.

Something like the KJV, on the other hand, is traditional text based, produced by the church (ecclesiastical), and in the public domain throughout the world, except in the UK where the Crown retains certain printing and distribution rights. This allows for free worldwide transmission and usage of the Bible, while providing centralized standardization of its text, for the English-speaking church.

I hope this helps! Grace and peace.

Hmmm. I take your overall point, though the details are nowhere near as neat and tidy as you make them sound. Coverdale worked largely from Latin and German, not Greek and Hebrew, and his work, along with Tyndale's and the Matthew Bible (along with the Geneva Bible) were the work of small groups of Christian individuals, published by commercial publishers, not so very different from the NIV, ESV and CSB. It is not until you get to the Great Bible that you get an authorized Bible, and it was, of course, authorized by the King of England, not by the church (unless you allow his claim to be the head of the church). So there's that. And the Great Bible (1539) was later replaced by the Bishop's Bible (1568, 1572 and 1602), which was in competition with the Geneva Bible (150 editions between 1540 and 1644, including significant changes in the NT in 1576) and then the KJV (1611 - but not printed in Scotland until 1633). So the KJV may represent a fixed standard now, but it certainly was not always so.

 

[MW]

If one is going to discredit the authorisation of the Bible because of the constitution of the Church of England one may as well say the Anglican Church does not have Articles of Religion or any form of worship. This would be ridiculous. One may disagree with the Erastianism but it doesn't negate that what is done is in the interests of the church. As much as what is done by a voluntary society under voluntaryism is still done for the church.

The AV's standardisation was not just political; it was profoundly religious. It rolled on the waves of historical developments. It straddled divides between conformists and dissenters. It was pivotal in evangelical revivals and global missions. Its language permeates sermons, catechisms, devotions, and even political speech. By God's blessing it came to be known as "our common version" with a cross-denominational reach. And even today people who are reading modernised Bibles are still hearing the echoes of the AV. None of them have been created ex nihilo.

 

[DiscipleJimmy]

While I’m no scholar, I wasn’t expecting the kind of responses my original post received. I’m still very new in my walk with Christ—learning daily what it means to follow Jesus and live out the new life I now have in Him.

I understand no Bible translation is perfect. But as someone who genuinely wants to grow in truth and be sure I’m reading God’s Word faithfully, I started seeking guidance here. What I found instead were strong, even harsh, claims—some saying the KJV is the only real Bible, while others suggested even the NKJV but claimed it as inferior though the NKJV is based on the RT.

For a moment, it caused real inner turmoil. I genuinely want to ensure I have God’s Word in my hands. So because of these vastly different answers, I started digging into the Received Text, the Critical Text, and the history of Bible translation.

Here’s where I landed:

There is no meaningful doctrinal difference when it comes to essential truths—salvation, the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus, the gospel.

Yes, there are textual differences—some verses present in certain manuscripts and missing from others, possible scribal notes, or minor wordings that shift. But these do not change the core message of the gospel.

I’ve been reading the NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, and others. And through these, I learned:

• I was a sinner, spiritually blind and dead—unable and unwilling to seek God. Condemned.
• That it is by the grace of God I was drawn to Jesus Christ, who alone can make me alive.
• That I needed to repent and confess Jesus as Lord.
• That He was crucified, died, and rose again on the third day, ascending to the right hand of the Father.
• That I’ve been baptized by immersion, received the Holy Spirit, and now call God “Abba, Father.”
• That I’m saved by grace through faith, not by works.
• That the Spirit works in me, sanctifying me and producing fruit for God’s glory.
• That Christ will return and judge the world.

And here’s what matters:

The KJV teaches this.

So does the NIV, ESV, NASB, LSB, NLT, and others.

So as a new believer, I’m genuinely confused by the intensity of those who push the KJV as the only valid translation. It almost made me question whether I had the real Word of God. Considering I can barely read a lick of KJV with words that are obsolete and no longer used today. It stirred up fear and doubt. Is that the kind of heart people have here is to sow doubt by trying to get people to read a translation no longer spoken?

But by God’s mercy, I wasn’t carried away.

Instead, I came away more grounded—realizing that God is faithful, and His Word is not limited to one English translation. His Spirit is more than able to teach and lead us through His truth, no matter what trustworthy translation we have.

 

[davejonescue]

While I’m no scholar, I wasn’t expecting the kind of responses my original post received. I’m still very new in my walk with Christ—learning daily what it means to follow Jesus and live out the new life I now have in Him.

I understand no Bible translation is perfect. But as someone who genuinely wants to grow in truth and be sure I’m reading God’s Word faithfully, I started seeking guidance here. What I found instead were strong, even harsh, claims—some saying the KJV is the only real Bible, while others suggested even the NKJV but claimed it as inferior though the NKJV is based on the RT.

For a moment, it caused real inner turmoil. I genuinely want to ensure I have God’s Word in my hands. So because of these vastly different answers, I started digging into the Received Text, the Critical Text, and the history of Bible translation.

Here’s where I landed:

There is no meaningful doctrinal difference when it comes to essential truths—salvation, the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus, the gospel.

Yes, there are textual differences—some verses present in certain manuscripts and missing from others, possible scribal notes, or minor wordings that shift. But these do not change the core message of the gospel.

I’ve been reading the NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, and others. And through these, I learned:

• I was a sinner, spiritually blind and dead—unable and unwilling to seek God. Condemned.
• That it is by the grace of God I was drawn to Jesus Christ, who alone can make me alive.
• That I needed to repent and confess Jesus as Lord.
• That He was crucified, died, and rose again on the third day, ascending to the right hand of the Father.
• That I’ve been baptized by immersion, received the Holy Spirit, and now call God “Abba, Father.”
• That I’m saved by grace through faith, not by works.
• That the Spirit works in me, sanctifying me and producing fruit for God’s glory.
• That Christ will return and judge the world.

And here’s what matters:

The KJV teaches this.

So does the NIV, ESV, NASB, LSB, NLT, and others.

So as a new believer, I’m genuinely confused by the intensity of those who push the KJV as the only valid translation. It almost made me question whether I had the real Word of God. Considering I can barely read a lick of KJV with words that are obsolete and no longer used today. It stirred up fear and doubt. Is that the kind of heart people have here is to sow doubt by trying to get people to read a translation no longer spoken?

But by God’s mercy, I wasn’t carried away.

Instead, I came away more grounded—realizing that God is faithful, and His Word is not limited to one English translation. His Spirit is more than able to teach and lead us through His truth, no matter what trustworthy translation we have.

This is why I was gently trying to suggest to you brother in the beginning. As a newer believer, this may be a rabbit-hole that serves little purpose in your current station. If the NIV84 is good for you, stick with it. If it be the ESV, stick with it. If it be both, use them both. But in your stage, it seems you would be better picking one and spending as much time as you can joyfully and awfully soaking the Word up. If the Lord wills, you will have many years to come back to dig into this area, even if you are concerned to. Like I mentioned, I have been a believer for almost 20 years, and the Bible translation I started with has served me today, just as good as the day I picked it up. Don't let Satan get you doubting them all.

 

[MW]

I understand no Bible translation is perfect. But as someone who genuinely wants to grow in truth and be sure I’m reading God’s Word faithfully, I started seeking guidance here. What I found instead were strong, even harsh, claims—some saying the KJV is the only real Bible, while others suggested even the NKJV but claimed it as inferior though the NKJV is based on the RT.

For a moment, it caused real inner turmoil. I genuinely want to ensure I have God’s Word in my hands. So because of these vastly different answers, I started digging into the Received Text, the Critical Text, and the history of Bible translation.

It may be because you are inexperienced that you have perceived this. I do not see that anyone has done what you have claimed on this thread. I am not sure why this would cause you "real inner turmoil." Whatever your state as a young Christian you should look to be more emotionally stable when considering differences among Christians, otherwise you will have no hope of coming to an objective conclusion on many things.

As you become more aware of differences in the versions in light of text critical and translation issues it will become apparent that they are not all saying the same thing. But as a young Christian I would not expect you to understand this. It is good, though, that you are willing to look at the points at issue.

The Scriptures are not only intended to be read and studied, but preached and heard. The very best version of Scripture should be studied under the ministry of the Word.

 

[Alex Moore]

Hmmm. I take your overall point, though the details are nowhere near as neat and tidy as you make them sound. Coverdale worked largely from Latin and German, not Greek and Hebrew, and his work, along with Tyndale's and the Matthew Bible (along with the Geneva Bible) were the work of small groups of Christian individuals, published by commercial publishers, not so very different from the NIV, ESV and CSB. It is not until you get to the Great Bible that you get an authorized Bible, and it was, of course, authorized by the King of England, not by the church (unless you allow his claim to be the head of the church). So there's that. And the Great Bible (1539) was later replaced by the Bishop's Bible (1568, 1572 and 1602), which was in competition with the Geneva Bible (150 editions between 1540 and 1644, including significant changes in the NT in 1576) and then the KJV (1611 - but not printed in Scotland until 1633). So the KJV may represent a fixed standard now, but it certainly was not always so.

Good evening, brother. I encourage you to read my comment once more. Nowhere did I claim that Coverdale translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek. However, Coverdale did source his Old Testament translation from Tyndale’s work in the Pentateuch and Jonah, which was rendered directly from the Hebrew, as well as drawing from earlier Latin and German sources for the remainder of Joshua through Malachi. His New Testament also was derived from the original Greek, via Tyndale’s work.

I believe we are all in agreement in that literally days could be spent detailing the intricacies of each foreign language Bible tradition. The brother asked for the meaning of ecclesiastical responsibility in regards to biblical translation; this is exactly what Tyndale’s through the King James Bible were. Each successive translation built upon the work of the previous, and the English-speaking church moved from one to another, not mechanically or instantly, but organically over time. Each previous iteration fell out of use and print. As an aside, the Geneva Bible was not published until 1560, its New Testament only being completed in 1557. The point being, none of these are radically different Bibles, but the same refined over time, each iteration in lockstep with the rest, and all based upon the traditional Protestant text.

And these are markedly different from the NIV, ESV, CSB, etc.—from the doctrinal presuppositions of their translators, to their source texts, to translational approach, to the presence of entire passages and verses, to copyright status, to marketing strategies. Also, it is very possible that you are referencing another conversation or comment of which I’m unaware, but I said nothing of biblical authorization, by monarch or otherwise. I hope this helps to clarify.

Grace to you and peace!

 

[Pictet]

It may be because you are inexperienced that you have perceived this. I do not see that anyone has done what you have claimed on this thread. I am not sure why this would cause you "real inner turmoil." Whatever your state as a young Christian you should look to be more emotionally stable when considering differences among Christians, otherwise you will have no hope of coming to an objective conclusion on many things.

This feels a little unfair. For an established Christian, certainly - but for someone relatively new who wants to know they have a reliable copy of God's word, it seems entirely understandable that they would be put off-balance by an argument between established Christians about translations. The question of who to trust on this is a difficult one at this stage.
Indeed it's becoming a more prevalent problem, as young Christians turn to YouTube to find a reliable Bible, and immediately find ferocious argument on the topic. Pastorally I'm finding it to be one of the most disturbing problems people who start coming to church have to deal with.
We can have our arguments in-house, but it really does matter that new Christians know that they can pick any of the translations mentioned above and lean and grow well.

As you become more aware of differences in the versions in light of text critical and translation issues it will become apparent that they are not all saying the same thing. But as a young Christian I would not expect you to understand this.

Again, it depends what you mean. Are there any significant differences of doctrine or teaching? No. Are there some different verses or a couple of short sections that some Bibles do or don't include? Of course. For a new believer, they are pretty much equivalent; for an established one doing serious exegetical study, it's a different matter.

 

[MW]

This feels a little unfair. For an established Christian, certainly - but for someone relatively new who wants to know they have a reliable copy of God's word, it seems entirely understandable that they would be put off-balance by an argument between established Christians about translations. The question of who to trust on this is a difficult one at this stage.

Do you agree with his assessment of "strong, even harsh claims" on this thread? There is nothing of the sort. However young one is in the faith it will require emotional maturity to engage in adult conversation.

Indeed it's becoming a more prevalent problem, as young Christians turn to YouTube to find a reliable Bible, and immediately find ferocious argument on the topic. Pastorally I'm finding it to be one of the most disturbing problems people who start coming to church have to deal with.
We can have our arguments in-house, but it really does matter that new Christians know that they can pick any of the translations mentioned above and lean and grow well.

Hence my comment about sitting under the ministry of the Word.

Again, it depends what you mean. Are there any significant differences of doctrine or teaching? No. Are there some different verses or a couple of short sections that some Bibles do or don't include? Of course. For a new believer, they are pretty much equivalent; for an established one doing serious exegetical study, it's a different matter.

Many doctrines are affected by Bible translations. There are even general doctrines in our Westminster Confession that are left with little to no support by modern changes. But especially in the area of particular exposition of doctrine, their strength of support, or the way they fit into an overall system of theology, is certainly altered by changes in text and translation.

 

[Pictet]

Do you agree with his assessment of "strong, even harsh claims" on this thread? There is nothing of the sort. However young one is in the faith it will require emotional maturity to engage in adult conversation.

I agree with you that describing it as harsh is too strong. But I think that we should be gentle to the tender consciences of young Christians in an area that is a real challenge for those recently converted. Whatever version we advocate, we should in that situation be careful to qualify our recommendation with a recognition that there is a substantial range of excellent translations, rather than burdening new believers with extra rules.

Hence my comment about sitting under the ministry of the Word.

Of course, this is the real necessity. And yet.... If a new Christian has started to go to church that uses, say, the, ESV, and hears that this is a terrible translation, will they not end up doubting the orthodoxy and fidelity of their church, and be tempted to abandon it? That's not a hypothetical question, it's the kind of issue that one runs into quite regularly with young men particularly.

Many doctrines are affected by Bible translations. There are even general doctrines in our Westminster Confession that are left with little to no support by modern changes. But especially in the area of particular exposition of doctrine, their strength of support, or the way they fit into an overall system of theology, is certainly altered by changes in text and translation.

Which doctrines do you have particularly in mind? Perhaps I'd have better phrased it as no dogma depends on which translation you use, but that's a loaded term. Certainly I struggle to think of any doctrinal variety that's significant to a new Christian, even if there are nuances for those delving deeper. Once someone has read their Bible a few times they can fret about those issues. Any doctrine that hangs on a single verse is less central by definition, as well.