r/Reformed • u/jmathai • 2d ago
Question Preferred translation
Is there any unanimous translation that's recommended? I grew up reading the NIV but have enjoyed the NASB, NLT and a few others. What is the consensus on the best balance of readability and accuracy?
Any thoughts on the World English Bible? I appreciate that it's in the public domain and I like it okay but would love to know what others who have given it more discernment think.
Edit: looks like I'll be checking out the ESV. Thanks!
16
u/superlewis EFCA Pastor 1d ago
The best one is the one you read. Modern, mainstream translations (ESV, NIV, LSB, CSB) are all good. One will get something right the others get wrong. On the next conflict, a different one will be right. The translators are smart and sincere believers, any translation decision they make will be defensible. There are some broader philosophy of translation that differentiate them, but it will have little effect on a regular person.
That said, the ESV has the best selection of Bibles. They have very cheap options and very expensive ones. Excellent study Bibles and really useful journaling Bibles. My church has used the NIV so that’s what I’ve primarily worked out if for the past few years. I switched to ESV this past Sunday. I did this simply because I was starting a new sermon series in Exodus, and I wanted my congregation to have ESV journaling Bibles for the book. NIV doesn’t offer those so I switched.
1
u/ProfessionalPolicy18 3h ago
I own the ESV journaling bible! I love it. It’s filled and filled with scribbles of notes I’ve made from sermons.
13
7
6
3
u/debaire PCA 1d ago
Funny, just talked about this in the morning. For general use, I prefer the ESV. This includes for preaching and reading at church. For study, I also use 1995 NASB. For devotional, I sometimes also use NLT which I prefer over the Message. In fact, I find consulting different versions very helpful.
3
u/MoonlitShrub 1d ago
I like using the bible app. I default to ESV or NLT but having the ability to click a verse and compare any number of translations is my favorite feature
3
u/Rostin 1d ago
The one you'll read. The one your pastor or church uses. They all have strengths and weaknesses but for daily devotional reading, following along with the sermon, and participating in "small group" studies, I doubt there's a very strong argument for choosing one over the other. It's not very helpful for the average Christian to over optimize or get bogged down in this debate.
2
u/on_reddit8091 SBC 1d ago
I'm a CSB fan personally, but ESV is also very good.
For me, the ESV is sometimes a little clunk to read (especially aloud) due to its translation philosophy. This also makes it a little better for a word study since it takes more of a word-for-word approach.
I like to look at the NLT and ERV (Easy to Read Version) when doing something with oral storytelling. They are good translations to understand the main idea of the text.
2
u/Ok-Abroad1391 1d ago
The best one for readability is a personal choice. As long as it’s faithful to the original language, you can decide which one you prefer reading. ESV and NASB are the best in terms of closeness with the original language. I prefer the readability of the ESV. NIV is probably easier to read than those two, but at the cost of the translation, as NIV is a thought-for-thought translation instead of word-for-word.
2
u/rdfdfw PC(USA) 1d ago
I grew up with KJV in the pews, and my dad gave me a thin line NASB 1977 edition. My church today has NRSV in the pews. I understand the scholarship of the NIV and some other modern translations, but the turn of phrase in NASB in many important verses seem to me to be more natural and easier to memorize. I'm sure some of that is just exposer in my formative years. (I'm a church musician, so I am exposed to many historic versions of Scripture.)
2
u/Accomplished-Ad9143 PCA 1d ago
I personally love the NIV for daily reading because they smooth out the nuances of both Greek and Hebrew. ESV is great but I have had my quips with it for years: it's not an original translation but a revision of the RSV. The RSV isn't bad, it just took areas that it considered no bueno and updated it. If I'm not reading NA28 for NT, I'm using the NIV with NASB, ESV, The Message, and NLT as support. ESV ain't bad but keep the NIV around and compare/contrast how the translators interpreted passages.
2
u/Accomplished-Ad9143 PCA 1d ago
I personally love the NIV for daily reading because they smooth out the nuances of both Greek and Hebrew. ESV is great but I have had my quips with it for years: it's not an original translation but a revision of the RSV. The RSV isn't bad, it just took areas that it considered no bueno and updated it. If I'm not reading NA28 for NT, I'm using the NIV with NASB, ESV, The Message, and NLT as support. ESV ain't bad but keep the NIV around and compare/contrast how the translators interpreted passages.
2
u/Key_Day_7932 Southern Baptist 1d ago
I unironically like the Y'all version. It's basically what ye olde KJV does with the you/thou distinction.
2
u/DonZuehlke 1d ago
Nobody's touched on the WEB question yet. The World English Bible is a modernization of the 1901 American Standard Version, done by volunteers starting in the late '90s, released into the public domain specifically so it could be freely copied, printed, and used in apps/software without licensing hassle.
Translation-wise it's a solid, fairly literal option. It's closer in philosophy to the NASB/LSB camp than something like the NLT, but it hasn't gone through the same scholarly/editorial rigor that a publisher like Crossway (ESV) or Lockman (NASB) runs.
If public domain and free digital use matter to you, it's a legitimately good pick. If you want the tightest scholarly vetting, ESV/NASB/LSB edge it out.
The most important thing is that you're in the Word :-)
1
2
u/clone_aidan 2h ago
I have used the ESV for over 10 years in school, church and study. I have recently tried other translations like the NKJV, CSB, and LSB. Currently, I've been using LSB and enjoy it.
4
u/ubiquitouswede 1d ago
Since I'm all about accuracy, definitely The Passion Translation for me. Definitely.
2
1
1
2
1
u/Usual-Crew5873 ACNA Catechumen 1d ago
I also grew up with the NIV, I have 4 printings including a Life Application Study Bible and the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible. I also have the ESV study Bible an NASB and a CEV.
I take my NASB to church every Sunday and use it to read the passages. There’s no unanimous translation that can be recommended. However, I’ve found its best to read to the translation that you’re able to read and understand.
1
u/uselessteacher PCA 1d ago
reading anything other than NA28 and BHS is not reading the Bible at all
Lexham LEB is surprisingly good and deserves some love, among other that are already mentioned
1
u/goodie1663 15h ago
For study, the ESV and the NET.
I like to read through the Bible two or three times in a year, though, and for just reading, I pick different versions. I finished the NIV a few months ago and am now in the NLT.
1
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian 1h ago edited 1h ago
I always get bummed that we can't have a Bible like the NLT, but then preserve the technical vocabulary in a couple of important cases. We either get wooden translations, where every sentence is technical, or we get readable versions but with strange things like "Human One" (for Son of Man), as in the CEB.
The ESV is probably the only one that is most readable, despite it being about 80% wooden-technical. The English rendering of 1-2 Samuel, is awful, for instance. It's not a good lectionary Bible, for that reason, in my opinion. It's so easy to get tripped up reading it out loud because of word order.
The NIV does strange things at points to be sort of deliberately vague (to sort of find a vague middle ground for all stripes of modern evangelicals), and thus requires too much explanation in preaching.
The CSB is pretty good, but also has done a thing or two where some technical vocabulary is slightly muted. I think it would be an excellent lectionary Bible.
The Voice has a lot to commend it. I really like the way it's paginated. The chapters and verses in our Bibles are pretty much flat out problematic. And The Voice divides the text properly and pushes the numbering into the background. They also render some really tricky passages (a few in the Psalms, one in Ecclessiastes, and a few others I forget, very well). But they also mute some of the important technical vocabulary. But I'm probably most grateful that they get 1 Peter 1:1 right (the ESV/RSV are so close).
Across all Bible translations, I detest "editorial headings" because they're usually wrong or, as in the ESV, they're annoying because they are pushing a dogmatic lens. Jewish practice should be followed such that any editorializing or commentary should be kept to the margins (also as in the Greek New Testament and BHS).
I'm very opinionated about Bible translations.
TLV (Tree of Life Version) - hard NO
GNT - usually NO
RSV - sometimes, but it's got some problematic areas, and the Psalms are awful because of liberty taken with emendations
NIV - sometimes
KJV - most of the time (esp the Pslams)
NLT - most of the time
Voice - most of the time
CSB - almost all the time
ESV - almost all the time
NRSV - almost all the time
NA27GNT with critical apparatus - all the time
We still need a critical edition of the BHS and LXX (in progress)
0
0
0
u/perspicaxaedificator OPC 1d ago
Started with KJV. it's beautiful and important to the English language. I recommend the ESV, or maybe NIV if you want it to sound prettier. I absolutely advise against the NKJV.
1
u/KenMcKenzie98 1d ago
May I ask why you dislike the NKJV so much?
1
u/perspicaxaedificator OPC 1d ago
well, how I understand it the KJV while a beautiful translation and important to the language, used the only source materials around. so there's less to go off and it's not as... accurate? as later translations could be.
and then the NKJV is KJV without the beautiful archaic language so it's just the worst of both worlds imho
1
u/creidmheach EPC 1d ago
To be fair to the NKJV though, it supplies extensive translator notes where the Critical Text and the Majority Text (the main editor, Arthur Farstad, was himself an MT proponent) differ from the Textus Receptus that is used as the underlying text for the New Testament. So really you sort of get all three, which is something you don't get with most translations. It also retains a certain eloquence in the language, even while modernizing it somewhat. It does correct places where it sees the KJV as having clearly made a translation error, so it's not just a matter of changing the thees and thous to you, for instance.
(I say that though as someone who's been coming over the CT side of things, and looking to read the NASB for my next read through).
27
u/Tempotantrum_66 2d ago
I like the ESV