Pro's and Con's of different Bible translations?

Question

Okay, so you get the Jehova's Witness version, the LDS version, the KJV, various 'youth' and 'modern language' translations, the Catholic Bible, the Good News Bible, the NIV... what are the pro's and cons of each? Which do you use and why?

x

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses print and distribute "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures", along with several other translations. There are more than 130 million copies of this modern-language bible in print, in dozens of languages.
http://watchtower.org/languages.htm

Jehovah's Witnesses certainly like NWT, but they are happy to use any translation which an interested person may prefer. The entire text of NWT is freely available at the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, and a personal printed copy can be requested at no charge:
http://watchtower.org/bible/
https://watch002.securesites.net/contact/submit.htm
http://watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm


NWT is distinguished primarily by its restoration of the divine name ("Jehovah" in English) in *ALL* of its nearly SEVEN THOUSAND occurrences in the oldest available manuscripts. NWT also restores the divine name to later Scriptures which quote from earlier passages that plainly contain "Jehovah".

New World Translation also contains marginal cross references, descriptive page headers, and a 'bible topic for discussion outline' which simply list relevant scriptures for each topic listed. Several appendices discuss matters of translation, such as related to the soul, trinity, and hell. Endsheets contain maps of the bible lands.

Incidentally, Jehovah's Witnesses attach no particular infallibility or inspiration to NWT. Like most dedicated bible scholars, Witnesses regret that the original bible manuscripts have never been discovered, and that neither a consensus nor perfect knowledge of ancient languages exists today.

Since the same manuscripts used by the NWT translators are still widely available for study, and since there are dozens of alternate translations for comparison, anyone who chooses to use NWT does so informedly.

It seems that the vast majority of the criticism against the New World Translation is actually as a proxy for blind hatred against Jehovah's Witnesses. The hatred must be "blind" since secular experts of biblical Hebrew and Greek have consistently refused to condemn any particular verse or phrase as an unacceptable translation. Instead, it is religionists with preconceived theologies who bigotedly insist upon particular wordings, since these are necessary to prop up the shaky tenets of their false worship.

(2 Timothy 4:3-5) For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

It seems significant that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones best known for their worldwide preaching work. Yet Jesus commanded that ALL who would call themselves "Christian" perform this public work:

(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.

Answer 2

Not an easy answer.
What you want to do is research the history of the Bible, to see how the words were translated and passed down through the centuries.
At some point, you will discover that some people were not very careful about the task of translation.
But about the modern versions, I have seen a proliferation of versions in the last 25 years or so- most of them sad to say have been made up for the purpose of making money. A different Bible for a different marketing group.
Hey, we got 'em for teens, got 'em for rock and rollers, got 'em for group study, got 'em for (you name it!)
Seriously to get to the heart of your question, of all the English versions available, get several. There is a useful purpose in doing so. A Living Bible version would serve to clarify the meaning of some verses. For accuracy and beauty, The King James. If you have a rough time using or memorizing the Elizabethan English of the King James, use the New King James.
But between these, you should come to a proper understanding the verses were meant to convey.
As far as the New International, I think it's written for 7th or 8th grade level understanding.

But back to what I first said, reasearch the history, and you will come to a better understanding of the versions.
Final word is, if you are using a version, and Christ is made real in your life, and you know He knows you, then that's good.

Answer 3

I use only the King James Version of 1611. Why? It is the best available english translation that we have and it is the most faithful to the original manuscripts. Others have indicated that other translations have wording changed and entire verses and passages left out. This should tell you something. The KJV also is the most honouring to God and it is the most poetical, too. It was not translated at a time when the integrity of the translators was in question as it has been for all modern versions, and that goes back to the late 19th century. Most important for me is that the KJV Bible is the only Bible that was based on Textus Receptus. All other versions were not, and that includes the new KJV! Do some research on the Textus Receptus and you will see why the King James Version is the only english translation to use. I hope this is helpful.

Answer 4

Some versions (for example, JW, LDS, and Catholic) may include or exclude books or portions of books that other versions don't. Within the versions not affiliated with one particular sect or denomination, you will find the traditional 66 books, but not the "apocrypha."

Some translations use different Hebrew or Greek sources. You can find numerous websites discussing the merits of the Byzantine (or Majority) Text versus the Alexandrian (or Minority) Text. Some prefer Bibles based on the Majority Text, others prefer Bibles based on the Minority Text.

Pro of the Majority Text: There are more copies, therefore we can be more certain that the text is accurate.
Con of the Majority Text: The copies available are from several centuries after they were originally written, so they are further removed from the "originals."

Pro of the Minority Text: These copies are older, putting them closer to the "originals."
Con of the Minority Text: There are fewer copies, so not as many "votes" for the original wording.

This is a simplification of the differences, and I'm sure some would argue that I haven't even captured the essence of what makes them different, but it gives you some idea of what the argument is about. The differences aren't that many; in most cases the "newer" (but more common) Majority text and the "older" (but less common) Minority text say the same thing, and where they differ it doesn't change the key doctrines of the Bible.

Besides differences in the Hebrew/Greek texts used as the basis of the translation, there are differences in the translation approach used. You can also find numerous websites discussing the merits of "formal equivalence" (ie, word-for-word) versus "dynamic equivalance" (ie, thought-for-thought). A word-for-word translation tries to directly translate each Hebrew or Greek word into the English word that is most appropriate. A thought-for-though translation tries to interpret what the original text was trying to convey, and then convey the same thought in English.

Pro of word-for-word: gets English readers as close as possible to the original text
Con of word-for-word: can be clumsy to read and harder to understand

Pro of thought-for-thought: Easier to read and understand
Con of thought-for-thought: The translator is responsible to "interpret" what the original text means, and may come to the wrong conclusion.

Again, this is a simplification, but presents the two ends of the spectrum. Some translations do their best to be as literal (word-for-word) as possible; many take a hybrid approach and use very literal translations in some places but where a word-for-word translation is impossible or would be unnecessarily confusing, translates the phrase or idea rather than the individual words. Paraphrases are at the extreme end of the "thought-for-thought" spectrum, and usually represent one mans interpretation (whereas translations are usually a team effort).

The page below provides a chart that shows where some versions fall on the "formal vs. dynamic equivalence" spectrum.

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm
(no endorsement of the author's conclusions or the accuracy of the material is implied)

Some people like to use a "thought-for-thought" translation (such as the New Living Translation) for general reading, so as not to stumble over difficult wording, but for in depth study might choose a more literal translation (such as the New American Standard). Personally, I like the NIV, but will also reference other versions, including those that are more literal. A great way to reference multiple versions at once, and also have access to commentaries, dictionaries, and other tools is the free e-Sword software available from www.e-sword.net.

Answer 5

Well I use only the KJV. I know many people was matyrd for this bible. I can tell you the NIV takes away from God's word. Many people think that the NIV is easier to read. Well what most dont know is what it does. The NIV leaves out whole verses and words like Son of God.
KJV calls Jesus Son Of God, NIV says Son of Man.
Mark 15:28 in the KJV is there but in NIV it was taken out.
1 John 4:3 The NIV leaves out that Christ is come in the flesh.

This is what the NIV does to certain words. The word Jesus it leaves out 15 times. The word Christ 25 times. The word Lord 16 times. The word God 13 times.
This is just a few things I know about what NIV does to God's word. I could name many but would take me a full day to do this.

Answer 6

Well, I personally mostly use the New World Translation, and yes I am a Witness. I do love the poeticness of the King James Version, however it can be hard to understand, and because it is written in King's English some of the phrases meanings now mean other things when people read them. I love the fact that the NWT was not made to suit a religion, in fact we change anything that we believe if we find it is not inline with the Bible. Case in point, we used to celebrate Christmas, believe Jesus died on a stake, had no beard, etc. We learned these things were not Biblical so we knew we had to change our ways. Also, Jehovah is in this translation. Many newer Bibles have over the years removed his name. I think what one of the answerers mention is important. If a Bible, in the process of translating, changes the meaning that is bad. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, yet more and more I hear of religions changing their ways to except it. Any "Christian" religion or Bible that changes meaning to suit others is incorrect.

PS, someone mentioned removing books of the Bible, ours has 66.

Answer 7

I often quote the KJV because that is what I learned when I was a kid.

I preach from the NASB, because it is very accurate and conforms to the Hebrew and Greek.

The NIV is okay if you need a lower reading grade level, 8th I think it is. It is written for "ease of understanding." But in doing this the translators make a lot of theological decisions that we should draw for ourselves and not have them written into the text.

I will never use the TNIV, because they went PC for that one, with gender neutral decisions that force changes in the text that are not supported in the Hebrew and Greek.

Forget the JW New World Translation. It is not worth looking at, let alone using. It is a very BAD translation.

The LDS will use the KJV of the Bible, but do not confuse that with their other "scriptures," because they are NOT the word of God. They don't even read like the Word of God; that's because they are man made.

If you want a readable and accurate translation, you might try the English Standard Version. I am doing my devotional reading from it sometimes.

Don't be confused by the translations.
If you want a good study Bible, and have the $$ for it, you might get a Thompson Chain Reference Bible, they come in many translations and are very useful. Go to a Bible book store near you and ask the rep. there to demonstrate the various Bibles they have for sale.

Answer 8

The Anchor bible is the best source for critical discussion of the biblical text. It is a scholarly work. For general use the New International Version contains notes on many of the new discoveries of ancient versions of the text (e.g. many of the 300 passages that Suzanne mentioned were left out because not all manuscripts contained them). The New American Standard bible is one of the most literal.

This does point out how ridiculous biblical literalism is. We have no idea what the original text was. Each new discovery brings us new versions which may or may not be more valid than the versions we had before. The texts were written down hundreds of years after the beginning of the oral traditions upon which they were based.

If believing in the bible works for you, go ahead, but don't believe that it is literal or inerrant.

Answer 9

My dad has done extensive studies on the bible and stuff. He's a minister and has been ordained Baptist and then now he's Pentecostal. He knows a lot. he says that the closest to the original translation is the KJV. BUT I find that the New KJV is a lot easier to understand when you are reading it. Also, the NIV is easy to read too. BUT I've been told that if you read the same verse in each version that it varies quite a bit. I haven't done my own research on that though.
Hope this helps.

Answer 10

I look at them all. Each has a slight variance over the others. However, when you translate from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, To German, to English you are bound to loose a bit. Therefore, I also compare any translation back to the origianl languages of Hebrew for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament. With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can nearly guarantee the accuracies today.

Find one that you are confortable reading.
Contrary to many, The Authorized King James is not necessarily the best. Especially when you consider the fact that Jesus didn't speak Elizabethan English.

Answer 11

Just a note - the LDS use the King James Version, it's the same as all the other KJV only ours has footnotes and crossreferences at the bottom of each page.