Which Bible Translation Is Right For You?

The Bible Version Selection Tool aims to take some of the grunt work out of choosing your translation. The short survey offers suggestions on how well the major translations will fit your needs.

In case you're curious, I currently use an NIV and my results from this quiz were the NET, REB, and the NRSV. Maybe I should think about getting a new bible?

Do your results match what you currently use? Do you think there are other questions this quiz should ask? Other thoughts? Post your top three and what you currently use in the comments.

Login to comment

IMPORTANT Did you have an account on the old ThinkChristian.net site? Click here transition your account. This will sync all your comments with your email address.

Comments (20)

I just read II Kings in the Message and was impressed by the ease with which I was able to read it despite me being continually annoyed by many of the renderings. I know it's not supposed to be a literal translation and I'm not even remotely an Hebrew scholar, but it was the quality of the English that got to me. The typography was also very good, apart from the teeny tiny semicolons. I think typography can be a neglected quality.

No particular English translation has really satisfied me though. I like the KJV, but there are some very opaque sections. The NIV has John 3:16 wrong, but it seems to be the most versatile. I like the NLT a lot, but get annoyed by it too. The ESV is good (and is a free download for MacSword :) ), but sometimes it is too close to the KJV for using with young people. The one I was most surprised by though was the New International Readers' Version. With its extremely short sentences it is ostensibly for public readings and, dare I say it, for people with learning difficulties, but I read Mark's Gospel in it and liked it a lot more than I thought I would.

I don't work for Wycliffe (though I did consider it), but I'd like to plug their Vision2025, whereby they want to see a translation effort started by the year 2025 for all of the more than 2000 languages still without any portion of scripture. Here's their website:
http://www.wycliffe.org.uk/ or http://www.wycliffe.org/
I got NET (which I regularly use) and NRSV (which I almost never use). What I use most ESV isn't even on the list. I wonder why.
I typically use NLT for my day-to-day reading, but it gets me pretty frustrated every once in a while. My top three:

1) Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (JPS): 118 points
2) New International Version (NIV): 113 points
3) God's Word (GW): 105 points

So of my top three, I have two I've never heard of and the NIV, which I left to experiment with NLT (my #11). Curious...
pcg,

In college we used the JPS Tanakh for an Old Testament class I took. It's definitely worth looking into as it gives a distinctly Jewish perspective on the Old Testament. I found it very interesting.

Also never heard of the God's Word translation. Looks like they have it online if you're interested:

http://www.godsword.org/cgi-bi...
Hughie Seaborn wrote recently about "The Message" (Eugene Peterson): "I would like to say that, in this day of slack Bible reading, when the Church is in crisis because of lack of Bible knowledge, the last thing that we want is another ‘bible’ that waters down the Gospel and subserviently caters to New Age, feminist and religious politics, as this ‘bible’ does. There is a terrible crisis in the Church, and in my opinion, this book will add fuel to the fire that is already ablaze.
People will not be led to a closer relationship and understanding of the Lord through this book. This ‘bible’ promotes another ‘Jesus’ and another ‘gospel’ as will be plainly obvious to anyone with even one ounce of discernment and who have a love for the sacredness of the Scriptures. If people will read this ‘translation’ of the Scriptures and accept it as truth then they will be further led astray into believing myths and fanciful stories, just as the Bible warns they will. Because people believe fantasy above the truth of the Scriptures, GOD says that He will give them over to a strong delusion. " He further wrote about the major differences
A Sample Comparison:
1 Corinthians 6:17-18
KJV "17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."
NIV "17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."
TM (p. 411) "Since we want to become spiritually one with the Master, we must not pursue the kind of sex that avoids commitment and intimacy, leaving us more lonely than ever - the kind of sex that can never "become one." There is a sense in which sexual sins are different from all others. In sexual sin we violate the sacredness of our own bodies, these bodies that were made for God-given and God-modeled love, for "becoming one" with another."
Comment: Firstly, this departure from the original message of Scripture regarding sexual immorality would lead the immature Christian to conclude that "commitment and intimacy," not marriage, set boundaries for acceptable sex in the eyes of the Lord.
Secondly, The term ‘the Master" is used in place of ‘the Lord.’ The use of this title for GOD and Jesus makes this version of the Bible politically correct and non-offensive to New Age devotees and followers of other religious persuasions. ‘The Master’ is a New Age term! The rest of the article written reveals glaring errors in interpretation of the scripture.
From The Message's website:

"As all translators do, he used interpretative skill in choosing those English words. However, he "paraphrased" the original by selecting language that communicates the style and flavor of the original in Bible times rather than trying to achieve word-for-word correspondence. The Message®, then, is a paraphrase from the original languages."

And

"It's not meant to replace your current version of choice. Rather, it is designed as a reading Bible that can give you a fresh perspective on a familiar phrase or passage. It's written in the kind of language that you would use to write a letter to a friend."

From what I can gather, The Message was never intended to replace anyone's current translation, nor was it intended to be a direct translation.

Also, a few notes on your concluding comments:

The Message is very explicit in regards to sex and marriage in other passages, additionally neither the KJV or the NIV use the word 'marriage'; however, they both allude to marriage through their diction, which is exactly what The Message is doing through it's use of "commitment and intimacy".

I'm not sure why calling God The Master is a bad thing just because it's new. Language is constantly changing. To me 'The Master' seems to imply that not only is God a master, he is THE master, the only one worth following.

Do you have a source for tying the term 'The Master' exclusively to New Age spirituality?
I only quoted a portion of the article written by Hughie Seaborn (The Lamp Ministry, based in Cairns, North Queensland, Australia) http://members.ozemail.com.au/... . I am not sure if the article entitled, "'The Message' Bible Per-Version" is still available, but it would have all of the bibliographical information used to contruct the article. I've done a comparative analysis of "The Message" against other translations (KJV / NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) and it has some seriously flawed translations. I would even go so far as to say dangerous. I would be happy to forward you a copy of the article that I have if you provide me an email address. If you have become a big fan of this Bible translation (as I thought I was going to be), then you will be sorely disappointed after reading the comparisons given in the article by this Australian minister.
Addendum: I found the article on the Lamp Ministry homepage (in the Articles subpage) about "The Message" ( http://members.ozemail.com.au/... ). Read this article and you'll get some idea about it's shortcoming. False teaching can never be accepted as somewhat okay to use for teaching, just because it's easier to read.
Thanks for the links. I read through The Lamp Ministry's article on The Message and I think I still have to come back to the fact that by the Peterson's and the publisher's admission The Message was never intended to be a primary study bible so treating it as one is a bit unfair.

Personally, I don't care for it, but if it can help people understand the text using idioms they actually understand it seems like a reasonable thing to me. Again, I'd never use it as a primary source, but again it was never intended to be.
Agreed in part, but even a paraphrase of the eternal Word of God still has to be held to some kind of standard for conveying the meaning and intent of the original.

Another infamous example, from 1Corinthians 6:9-10:
NIV: Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Message: Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom.

It's taking dangerous liberties to be vague and generalize where the Bible actually is specific. Some could read the Message and come away with "I don't abuse sex with my (mistress, gay lover, etc) - I love her!" Thereby watering down the convicting power of the more literally translated Word.
Can't help but be curious what Peterson's mindset was there. Is it perhaps partly a "seeker-sensitive" paraphrase, written to intellectually stimulate and whet the spiritual appetite without morally offending the reader?
If you've found this paraphrased Bible as a help in getting close to God's Word, even
after knowing it's shortcomings, then that's fine. When you said, "The Message was
never intended to be a primary study Bible so treating it as one is a bit unfair." Is a bit
naive. Young people, for instance, might be given this Bible as a primary Bible (or "first
time" Bible) and intended or not, they are going to study the one they have. It's like saying
that "I had no intention of running over my neighbor's cat", it's still going to be dead. The
moral is that the deed will have been done and the effects are just as damaging, even
though the intent might have been benign.
Running over someone's cat and giving someone a rendition of the bible that clearly states it's not the end all interpretation of the text are two vastly different things.

Again, I personally don't go in for The Message and I would agree with you that it shouldn't be given out as a first bible, but it seems to me that you're assuming a blanket naivety on the part of person receiving this bible as well as assuming that any study they participate in is happening in a vacuum. Now, if their church is also using The Message exclusively, that's a problem, but I've never encountered such a church.

You and I can clearly discern the difference between our chosen translations and The Message. I'd have to imagine others can as well. Also, doctrine is not immutable. Maybe it's just me but even growing up in bible-based churches has lead to some rather heretical thinking on my part.
Apparently, I touched a nerve. Sorry! The analogy was intended to so imply
that well intended things can have deadly (in this case eternal) consequences. You're right in that most people with any discerning wisdom will see this Bible for what it is. There are
people that admired Thomas Jefferson and thought his version of the Bible
was fine... obviously it dismisses the miraculous nature and deity of Christ.
I'm sorry for your heretical thinking, but was it the fault of the churches you
grew up in or yours. The problem I see in most churches is the "Pharisee"
types who check everyone else's holiness (righteousness) level against their
own to somehow verify or justify their standing before God. There is only one
judge and my obedient walk and relationship with God is not yours and vice
versa. Parting thought...
"The safest sheep are the ones closest to the Shepherd."
Of course you touched a nerve! You called me naive!

Which is probably warranted, I definitely am a lot of times. Apology accepted. :)

I should have been more clear on my point about heretical thinking. What I was trying to get at (rather unsuccessfully now that I read it again) was that just because one first understands a doctrine or verse one way does not mean they will always believe that way, nor should they just because that was their first exposure.

While The Message might produce different results when individual verses are compared, I still think it does a fantastic job of presenting the gospel to people in a language they understand. Again with the caveat that it not be their primary study bible.

Also, while I don't think you're trying to make a direct comparison, I would point out that Jefferson clearly set out to produce a heretical interpretation of the bible.
An interesting quiz. The quiz touches on some good points, but neglects others. One of the questions that wasn't on there was the original source for the translation. Example: Textus Receptus, Majority Text etc.
The top 4 that I use are: 1. NASB 2. NIV 3. ESV 4. NRSV
I memorize verses from NIV and use NIV for initial readings, but when I want to dig deeper, I like AMP and NLV.
I just can't get comfortable with The Message.

*great question!
To get me from Deuteronomy through Chronicals I & II I needed The Message - thanks Eugene. Now that I got the gist I can go back to it with my NIV - nuts to all you Eugene bashers: of course it's theological (manifestly not literal - that's the point) and clashes with any number of theologies you'd care to name. If you think it waters down the Gospel I'd question whether you've understood the Good News.
Interesting survey. NET and NRSV were ranked tops for me. I typically read an ESV or NRSV.

Here's a recent bit that discusses the importance of accurate translation, among other things. http://president.blogs.covenan...
Whichever translation you find most pleasing, pleased be advised that it's always a good idea to not just trust in one...especially with these new 'dumbed' down versions of the Holy Bible. Often times I find that the words or phrasing these editors choose end up twisting the original meaning all together.

Personally, I stick to the King James Version, that is the New Kings Jame Version, which is the same minus the old English/ Shakespearian language. I also trust the Tanakh (Old Testament) as translated by the Jewish Publication Society.

But, as always, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you when choosing the appropriate translation AND when you're reading the Holy Word, for understanding.

- http://www.lavrai.com/blogs
The Bible translation for me is The Holy Bible commonly know as the King James Version. W hatever version you chose to read please note these two verses in The Book Of Revelation Chapter 22: 18 & 19. The verses are as follows: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. The book "New Age Bible Versions" by G.A. Riplinger mentions fifteen bibles than add words or changes the meanings,take words and entire passages out.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now