How important is your Bible translation?

How important is it assuming you are an English speaker for this article does not delve into Bibles that are not in English or go past the original Hebrew and Greek and for those who know me you know I use a lot of Hebrew.We are dealing with English translations from Hebrew and Greek but we are not concerned with a Bible written in say German or French or Chinese ,for one I do not speak those languages,I speak only Hebrew and English but we will talk about Greek today though.I am also not delving much into the Tanakh or Old Testament but we will examine New Testament translations for the basic reason that I read the Old Testament always in Hebrew and I honestly do not know a lot about the English versions and which are best but I do read the NT in English every day!

I am sure most people who read my work know that I am not King James only and I actually myself use the New International Version most often.My personal opinion on the King James is that it is a good translation that has been amazing in holding the test of time but newer versions are fine too.Also the original authorized KJV has been out of print since 1911 and so the King James is really the New King James and the New King James Version is really the super new King James.Most King James only people have never actually read the King James.Many people say the KJV is based on outdated Greek manuscripts but the differences are not a big deal to be honest.I would personally recommend the NKJV or the New King James over the KJV but if you like the King James I see no problem it has worked well for hundreds of years in the English speaking world.

What about the Textus Receptus for instance a template for many modern English Bibles.The main argument against it is that it was complied by Erasmus in 1516 and is late to the game,however as far as I know the only known variation from earlier Greek texts is the inclusion of the adulterous woman story of John 8 which I have a whole article on (you can look it up on here it is fairly recent).Other than the inclusion of the adulterous woman story I honestly have never heard that the Textus Receptus contradicted older Greek texts other than that and that the Textus Receptus was late to the game.Coming in in the 16th century whereas most other texts are typically 4th century.I would say personally that the given evidence against it is weak but has some validity.

Although the oldest known copies of the Greek NT can go back as far as 125 ce but the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known entire Bible both old and new testaments including the Appocrypha and some other  deuterocanonical books like the Epistle to Barnabas.One criticism I’d offer is that even though it’s dated to the 4th century it was not found until 1844 in Egypt hence “Sinai ticus” for Sinai desert.Many suspect it is a forgery but I have not seen evidence proving this and like the Textus Receptus there is also nothing super contradictory.Also it’s redaction of the book of Revelation is in poor condition and other texts must be relied upon for that book.Here is below a link to a post that deals with some of these issues.

Is John 8:1-11 Authentic

So let us now talk about some popular translations.

The New American Standard Bible

First published in 1971 this translation has a reputation for literalist version and being very word for word and to be honest I have not studied it that much but let us take a look.And for the NT it uses the Novum Testamentum Graece Greek text which I do not know much about TBO.

Here is John 3:16

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

Looks fairly normal to me ,here below is John 10:10

¹⁰ The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came so that they would have life, and have it abundantly.

Pretty standard no pun intended

Here is classic Psalm 23

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

In my opinion if the NASB wrong ,every Bible is wrong

Let us look at the New International Version published in 1978 and this is one of my favorites and is a mix of word for word and thought for thought translation which I will explain.

Textual basis

The manuscript base for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and, for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.^[27] The manuscript base for the New Testament was the Koine Greek language editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland.^[28] The deuterocanonical books are not included in the translation.

A lot went into this ,here is again Psalm 23

Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,
I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.

A little different than usual but not wrong in meaning but I would have gone with more of the traditional,the Hebrew does say “shadow of death” but darkest valley works ,let us look at some NT stuff.John 3:16 again

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Pretty standard here ,let us look at Romans 10:9

⁹ If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Pretty much the same as every version out there

Now let us look at the English Standard Version or ESV

Now the ESV does something interesting an uses Dead Sea Scroll material in the Old Testament.Lets look at Deuteronomy 32

⁸ When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
    when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
    according to the number of the sons of God.

Notice it used the DSS version in “sons of God” whereas all other translations say children or sons of “Israel”

This is something unique in the ESV and very radical to make a change to the tried and true Masoretic text.Now the ESV published in 2001 is a variation on the Revised Standard Version and uses the same Greek Text the NASB does Novum Testamentum Graece and goes hog wild in the Old Testament.Now I love the Dead Sea Scrolls but I think they still need more research before they are used in Bibles and is one reason I prefer the NIV for my NT reading ,otherwise I would use the ESV.Again I love the DSS but let us research them more first.The ESV is also a strict word for word translation as like the King James ,NKJV,NASB whereas as the New International Version is more thought for thought.Here is Corinthians 15

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

Again pretty standard and lets end part 1 and move on to part 2 ,see you there !