Which Bible Translation Is the Best?

English is privileged above all other languages to have many excellent translations. In the Bible translations wars, it is embarrassing that we fight so vigorously over which one is the best, when in fact any of our top five translations are better than any Spanish or Chinese or Russian or Indian version. Few of the 4 million Nagas in the Himalayan foothills have access to a version in their native language. Thus, it is with some embarrassment that I dare give my opinion on English translations.

Task Oriented Translations

Preliminarily, I deny that there is such a thing as the BEST English translation. The issue for English versions is which one is best for the particular job. We have to ask, Which version is best for…

• Evangelism or new converts? (New Living Translation)
• Detailed word-for-word study? (English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, American Standard Version 1901)
• Public reading? (New International Version)
• Intensive reading programs such as read-the-Bible-in-a-year programs? (New Living Translation)
• Children? (New International readers’ Version—NIrV)
• Adults with reading disabilities or difficulties? (New International readers’ Version—NIrV)
• Solemn or stately occasions? (KJV; New King James Version)
• The most powerful vocabulary to convey difficult concepts found in the Greek? (New English Bible)
• Memorization? (New International Version)
• Artistic, high impact rendering (The Message)

While Bible users should settle on one primary version, they should recognize that some translations are more effective for certain tasks.

Formal Equivalent vs. Dynamic Equivalence

Translations can be placed between two extremes. On the far left are those versions which attempt a word-for-word equivalence. This is called “formal equivalence.” This approach attempts to give exact representation to the Greek and Hebrew syntax, and to reduce vocabulary down to its most common meaning (not nuanced meaning). So, if the Greek has five words, it will try to use five English words in translation. Greek idiomatic expressions are represented literally, instead of idiomatically. Word order and order of clauses are retained as much as possible. English style is not prioritized. The most extreme examples of formal equivalence yield an English text which sounds like “translation English,” much as a foreign diplomat with poor English skills would talk. (King James Version does have some archaic elements in it, but much of its peculiarity derives from its formal translation of the Greek and Hebrew—it is translation English!)

On the far right are those versions which attempt to convey accurately the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, without being slavish to the syntax of the original languages. This is called “dynamic equivalence.” There is no concern for exact representation of syntax, and biblical idioms are put into natural English language. Priority is given to English style so that there is no hint of the awkward elements in the original language which might otherwise adversely affect the translation.

Here are some contrasting examples between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence (the two lists correspond to each other):

Formal Equivalence

1. he lifted up his eyes to Jesus
2. bowels and mercies
3. Jesus said to him, saying
4. And the LORD said to Abram
5. And they, having heard the king, went
6. And opening his mouth, he taught them saying
7. And it came to pass, sitting at meat, he spoke

Dynamic Equivalence

1. he looked at Jesus
2. compassion and mercies
3. Jesus said to him
4. Now, the LORD said to Abram
5. After hearing the king’s instructions, they went
6. He began to teach them. He said
7. Later, while eating, he said

The advantage of formal equivalence is that it gives the Bible student a good idea of the exact wording of the original language. This approach is excellent for careful, detailed analysis of the text. Conversely, the advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it is easy to read, for it conveys the message in natural English.

Specific Versions

Of the standard English versions, the most formal equivalent translation is American Standard Version 1901 (widely available on-line and in most Bible software). Less rigid formal equivalent versions are English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible (1995 update).

Today’s most popular and best dynamic equivalent version is New Living Translation. Additionally, Today’s English Version (= Good News Bible) was widely popular in the last quarter century, and remains useful. Since these versions prioritize English style, they are excellent for those who might spend an hour or longer of (non-contemplative) straight-through Bible reading. They are also useful for evangelism, or to introduce the Bible to people who are unfamiliar with biblical lingo.

There are several versions which are in between the two extremes. Preeminent of these is New International Version. It attempts to serve two masters equally—one master being the Greek and Hebrew syntax, the other master being English style. Thus, NIV attempts to mirror the Greek and Hebrew as much as possible, while keeping good English style. This balanced approach makes NIV an excellent translation for memorization and for public reading. As such, it would serve well as anyone’s primary Bible translation. NIV is produced by evangelical translators.

New Revised Standard Version also attempts to be balanced between formal and dynamic equivalent. It is slightly more formal than NIV, and is popular among mainline (less conservative and liberal) denominations. The New American Bible, which was produced by Catholic scholars, also takes a balanced approach.

Comparing Versions

Those researching a given biblical passage should compare several versions for differences in meaning. If only four translations can be used, I recommend using New King James Version, American Standard Version, New International Version, and New Living Translation. If eight translations can be used, I recommend using these four plus English Standard Version (or New American Standard Bible), New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, and Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Where NKJV differs from the other versions, it may be due to textual issues rather than translational issues.

Southern Baptists, Bible Translations, and the Condemnation of the NIV

A majority of the men at the Southern Baptist Convention today condemned the New International Version on the basis that it is not a faithful translation of the word of God.

At issue is whether men must translate with something like “goodwill to men” rather than “goodwill to people,” or whether men must translate that God wants all men to be saved rather than all people, or whether we must always refer to the Israelites as the “sons of Israel” instead of “children of Israel.”

In formal Greek linguistic categories, the nouns and pronouns in question are in the masculine, but nonetheless convey the inclusion of women. The NIV does not always render these nouns and pronouns with their corresponding masculine forms, but rather with English words which convey the same meaning as the Greek.

Because of NIV’s tendency to render the meaning of the Greek rather than slavishly reproducing formal masculine linguistic categories, certain influential men brought their case against the NIV before the Southern Baptist brethren. The resolution narrowly passed by the votes of a few men.

Ironically, the version most closely associated with Southern Baptist is the HCSB which translates many of these same passages similarly as NIV.

The fault lies with a handful of men, sometimes scholarly ones, who innocently say, “I prefer a more literal version such as the ESV.” Well intentioned laymen and pastors combine this innocent statement with their rightly placed belief in inerrancy, and conclude, mistakenly, that literal versions are theologically preferable, while anything less is liberal.

Let those men who study these issues be more cautious about how they promote certain Bible versions. There’s no such thing as the one best version. There is, however, such a thing as the best version for a particular need:

• literal versions are to be preferred for exact and detailed study involving vocabulary and syntax (ESV ASV NASU)

• dynamic equivalent versions are to be preferred for lengthy or protracted or speed reading, such as reading-the-Bible-in-a-year programs, or for evangelizing men (NLT TEV)

• middle-of-the-road translations for Bible memorization or for public reading (NIV NRSV)

We men who teach the Bible need to stop saying that “literal translations are best for those men who believe in inerrancy.”

Scholarly men need to stop providing fodder for the demagoguery of translation theory, because what they say will produce misguided resolutions such as what was passed at the Southern Baptist Convention today. This is so unfortunate because misguided resolutions trivialize other resolutions that good men might pass at the convention. For example, the men of the Southern Baptist Convention rightly reaffirmed their belief in hell, but they did so while condemning the NIV. How can men take one resolution seriously when the other is so unfounded?

Another unintended consequence of this misguided resolution is to reinforce the KJV-only laymen and churches in their suspicion against “untrustworthy” versions. The resolution sets back churches at least a year or two in the effort to get into the hands of our churchmen a more accurate translation than the 400 year old linguistically outdated KJV.

Just for clarification, all of my aforementioned references to “men” are meant to imply women as well and are included to illustrate that men don’t talk the way that the authors of the resolution expect men to translate.

The Problem with the English Standard Version (ESV) and Theological Demagoguery

The problem with the English Standard Version (ESV) is not with the translation itself, but with the theological demagoguery that its advocates use to promote it and to discredit its competition.

This demagoguery involves thoughtless assertions that the more literal a translation is the better. Accordingly, dynamic equivalence is made suspect as the invention of liberal scholars. The intended conclusion of such demagoguery is that people who believe the Bible should stick with formal equivalent versions such as the ESV. These claims are faulty in so many ways, but in this post, I’ll just point out one.

ESV is marketed as having an eighth grade reading level. This in itself shows that ESV fails in its intended purpose to be formal equivalent. It intends to render all of the Bible at the same reading level, even though the Greek (and Hebrew) of some of the individual books and authors of the Bible are easier to read than others.

In the New Testament, the Greek style and vocabulary of John’s Gospel is so simple that an intermediate Greek reader can just about speed read it, while the Greek style and vocabulary of Luke-Acts and Hebrews is so complex that advanced Greek readers struggle mightily therein.

If ESV really felt that formal equivalency were a theological tenet rather than a pragmatic tool, the translators would have translated the easy to read Greek into easy to read English, while those Greek books which are more difficult to read would be translated into more advanced English. As it turns out, the reading levels for the ESV are about the same throughout the Bible. Thus, readers get no sense of the level of difficulty of the Greek behind the English translation.

Of course, the only reason why the publishers cast aside formal equivalence in regard to readability levels is because difficult-to-read Bibles don’t sell. A case in point would be the short-lived New English Bible which, for example, translated the lofty prose of Heb 1:3 as referring to Christ as the effulgence of God’s glory, the impress of his substance. Stuff like this doesn’t sell.

Ultimately, we need to cast aside the notion that translation methods reflect theological commitments. Rather, we should take advantage of the availability of so many very excellent translations, and use the best translation according to the occasion: use the right tool for the job.

The Beast and the False Prophet of Revelation are "She's"

The Beast and the False Prophet of Revelation are "She's"

Yep, that's right, according to my Bible, the Beast is a she, and so is the second Beast, her false prophet.

--at least according to my French Bible (I've just about read through the French NT as part of my prepatory studies for my PhD).

In French, the word for beast is bete (often the "st" sound in English is found simply as a "t" sound in French). Bete is a feminine noun. In English, we generally don't assign gender to nouns like they do in French, Spanish, most other Romance languages, Greek and Hebrew, etc. In English, "book," for example, is an "it," but in French "book" is a "he."

This scrambles up our translations sometimes, as it does with reference to the two Beasts in Revelation.

In Greek, the noun "beast" (therion) is neuter, and is usually referred to as "it." However, the two Beasts of Revelation are personal entitities. Consequently, our English versions are quick to use personal masculine pronouns for them (he, his, him). This is quite natural, and is similar to what we do in regard to the Holy Spirit which, in Greek, is neuter (it, its).

However, in French, since beast (bete) is feminine, it would be quite a slaughtering of the language to assign masculine pronouns to the Beast. Consequently, in the French translation, "she" had seven heads, and no one was able to make war with "her," and "she" spoke blasphemies.

So, this raises the issue of the translator having to be a slave to two masters. The first master is the Greek, which would require the English translator to use neuter pronouns for the Beast: "It" spoke blasphemies; "it" had seven heads, etc. But this conveys to the reader that the Beast was a non-personal entity, when clearly it was a thinking, feeling, acting being worthy of a personal, not impersonal, pronoun.

The second master to which the translator must be a slave is the receptor language, for example, English. To make sense to English readers, the translator ought to use the personal pronoun--either the masculine or the feminine would be justifiable. (Here is a clear case of our male-bias getting the best of us.) However, this is in conflict with the Greek master, for the Greek does not assign gender to the Beast.

All this is true also for French.

In most passages, NIV and NRSV try to please both masters equally. ESV, NASU, RSV, all try to give precedence to the Greek master. NLT tries to give precedence to the English master.

Sometimes, it's a hard task to try to serve two masters, but in translation theory, you really need to.

Basics of Translation Theory

The Meaning of Ka’at
Let’s consider the Igkaadian language, a make-believe language. We find the occurrence of the word ka’at in a text, but we don’t know what it means. Since there is no Igkaadian lexicon (=language dictionary), we can’t look it up. So we do the work ourselves by finding as many occurrences of the word as possible. Note how the range of meaning changes in each sentence:

I’m going to the ka’at to get a drink.
Some would suggest the meaning “bar” or “drinking fountain,” etc.

Go to the ka’at and fill up your canteen as soon as you have pitched your camp.
Here the context suggested by “canteen” could be a campout, prompting some to suggest the meanings “river, spring, lake,” etc.

During the seventh inning stretch, I’m going to the ka’at to buy me a soda.
The context is a ball game during which a soda could be purchased. Thus, we should think of something like a concession stand.

During the next commercial, I’m going to walk into the kitchen to get me a cold soda from the ka’at.
The context is watching tv (as indicated by the reference to the commercial break). Here we find out that the ka’at may be located in the kitchen and that one can get a cold soda from it. Thus, ka’at could refer to a refrigerator in this context.


If we could just find a few more references to ka’at in the extant literature of the Igkaadian language, we could be more exact in determining its meaning. Unfortunately, in our case, this is all we have to go on. We’ll have to make a decision based on these few occurrences, unless perchance, archaeologists someday discover either more Igkaadian texts or another cognate language which has a word similar to ka’at. (To illustrate this last point, I may not know the Spanish word iglesia, but since it appears to be derived from the Greek word ekklesia, then I can usually surmise that iglesia must have something to do with “church.”)

[We should pause to note that a number of words found in the Hebrew Bible occur only once or twice anywhere in any Hebrew text. This makes translation very difficult. The KJV translators, for example, admitted that for some words, they were merely guessing the best they could. In the past 100 years, archaeologists have discovered a number of other Hebrew texts, and a number of Semitic languages related to Hebrew have also been discovered (Akkadian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, etc). This has helped immeasurably in translating those words which occur only rarely.]

Formal Equivalence vs Dynamic Equivalence
So, synthesizing the data above, we attempt an explanation of the word ka’at. Minimalistically (that is, “literally,” but in reality that term is inaccurate), ka’at is some sort of source for quenching one’s thirst. Usually, we would try to assign a one-word English equivalent (= gloss) equivalent to ka’at, but unfortunately, I can’t think of one.

To go beyond this minimalistic (“literal”) definition, the context must be ascertained. In some contexts, ka’at could mean a concession stand, a refrigerator, a bar, or an outdoors body of water such as a lake, spring, creek, or well.

Here is where “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” part ways. Formal equivalence (the translation theory behind NASB, ESV, the old ASV, and to some extent NRSV) would generally translate ka’at with its one word minimal equivalent. On the other hand, dynamic equivalence (the translation theory behind NIV) would generally translate ka’at according to the fuller meaning supplied by the context of the individual passage.

An Example from the Greek
The above discussion of the imaginary Igkaadian word ka’at is applicable to the difficult Greek word sarx. Here are a few sentences illustrating how biblical writers may have used it:

Great Aunt Elsie would like to attend revival meetings this week, but her sarx is too weak to climb the steps up to the church building.
Here, Aunt Elsie’s body is too weak or frail.

We disciples wanted to pray with Jesus, but our sarx was weak.
Here, although somewhat ambiguous, the statement seems to reflect the context of the disciples’ great sleepiness.

An unregenerate person wants to do the desires of the sarx.
It seems here that sarx refers to human nature in all of its fallenness.

Do not eat sarx sacrificed to idols.
Here, sarx seems to refer to meat (or some other sort of food).

Ouch! Don’t touch me. My sarx is sunburned.
Skin....

No one knows where the sarx of Moses was buried.
Here, sarx seems to refer to a dead body.

Do not let anyone compel you to circumcise your sarx.
For Jews, the term sarx may refer to that part of the male organ which was cut off for religious purposes.

Jesus Christ was born son of David, according to the sarx.
Here (cf. Rom 1:2-4), the human lineage of Christ is referred to.

Meaning of Sarx: Formal and Dynamic
From all of the above examples, it is clear that sarx is “multivalent,” that is, it has many meanings depending on context. One might assign the word “flesh” as a minimalistic one-word gloss for it. This is what the NASB usually does. In contrast, depending upon context, the majority of modern translations will try to supply the most specific meaning to a given context. Thus, you will see the word translated in the NIV as sinful nature, muscle, meat, flesh, skin, body, human nature, muscle, etc., depending upon the context.

Inerrancy and Translational Theories
Some claim that inerrancy works better with formal equivalence than dynamic equivalence (see, for example, the gracious and positive contributions that Bro. Danny has made in a number of posts). The argument assumes “plenary verbal inspiration” (viz., God gave the biblical writers the inspired message in such a way as to guarantee that the Greek and Hebrew words they chose were sufficient and accurate to convey this meaning to their audience [at least this is close to how Forlines defines inerrancy]). They argue that since inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture, the English words which are in exact correspondence to the very Greek and Hebrew words should be used. In light of the foregoing examples, I think the weakness of this argument is apparent.
What would be the formal equivalence of sarx? Well, actually there is no formal equivalence to sarx apart from context! Meaning is determined entirely by context. That is why we should translate the meaning of the text (the con-text) rather than fragmenting it by translating minimalistically. I think most people can see that a so-called literal translation does not bring us any closer to the original meaning of the Greek. Consequently, I reject the notion that formal equivalency reflects inerrancy better than dynamic equivalence.

Formal Equivalency and “Translation English”
Every night on tv news, we hear many foreign politicians speak who are not fluent in English. This is what we call “translation English.” The speaker thinks of what to say in his own native language and then does a minimalistic translation into English, making his comments sound awkward.
While in India, I saw a sign written first in Hindi and translated minimalistically into English: “It is crime to make dirty the Taj Mahal.” A good dynamic equivalence translation would have ironed out that awkwardness.
Using an American dictionary, a Chinese restaurant manager once wrote “Check is not acceptable,” when good English idiom would demand something like, “Checks are not accepted” or simply “No Checks.”
If the hispanic reporters covering news in Washington had to go by formal equivalence, they would have to talk about El Presidente Bush en la blanca casa instead of casa blanca.
While overseas, I asked in French, “Ou est la salle de bain?” which is a word for word translation of the important English phrase, “Where is the room of the bath.” No one understood me, except for the one person who knew a little English. He explained to me that the proper phrase is “Ou est le petit coin,” which minimalistically rendered is, “Where is the little corner.”
This kind of awkwardness abounds in the formal equivalence translations (less so in ESV). This is why we read “coals of fire” instead of “fiery coals,” and “power of glory” instead of “glorious power.” Or, “the earnest of the Spirit” instead of “the earnest, which is the Spirit.” Or, “his meat was locusts and wild honey” instead of “his food was locusts and wild honey.” Or, “if any bowels (!) and mercies”(Phil 2:1). Many, many such examples abound. We who have been born and reared on KJV all of our lives have gotten so used to such awkwardness that we don’t even notice it. Put KJV’s Psalm 23:1 (“I shall not want”) into the hands of inner city youth in East St. Louis, and they won’t have a clue as to its meaning.

One should also note how formal equivalence lacks cultural sensitivity. KJV’s word for word formal equivalence of Heb 12:8 reads, “But if ye be without chastisement..., then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Few of us would otherwise use the somewhat crass word. The same is true for Saul’s statement that David “pisseth.” A formal equivalence seeks words to accurately convey meaning without causing the kind of offense which is otherwise absent in the original language.

Another example of cultural insensitivity of a different kind is the phrase about Adam having to work by the sweat of his brow. One translator working with a people in Africa who didn’t yet have the Scriptures in their language asked the people about this passage. They were entirely befuddled by the phrase “by the sweat of his brow.” The missionary later explained that in their tropical jungle setting, you can be sitting at ease in the shade of your front porch sipping lemonade and still have beads of sweat on your forehead. He asked the natives how they express the idea of hard work. They responded by talking about how all the men would pull with all their strength on a rope tied to a tree in order to uproot it. Their local idiom for such effort was, “busting their gut.” Here is just another example where dynamic equivalence works far better than formal equivalence in expressing the meaning of God’s word.

What’s Great about the Formal Equivalence Translations
While the formal equivalence translations are not the best for general reading or for scripture memory, they are extremely helpful in doing detailed exegetical work. For example, the ASV (1901) is the only commonly used English translation to reflect the five-fold repetition of the Hebrew word ‘bd in Exod 1:13-14:

And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor: and they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of value of service in the field, all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor.

Obviously, this is a very awkward translation, and ultimately, very poor. However, itnot good English, then it is not a good translation.
The NIV does a good job of maintaining a good balance of being obedient to two masters. The one master is the original language; the other is the receptor language (English). On one hand, slavish obedience to the original makes for a poor translation. On the other hand, over-commitment to the receptor language loses too much of the original language. NIV does an admirable job of serving both masters.
Again, NIV is not dynamic equivalent. It lies very much in the middle between formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent. Thus, while NASB, ASV, and ESV make for very good translations for doing lexical (word) and syntactical (sentence structure) studies for people who don’t know the original languages, the NIV is a premiere, perhaps the premiere translation for general use, for general reading, and for memorization.