What Bible Should I Buy?

I have been a pastor since 1972. At times people have asked what Bible they should buy. They want to be certain the translation they chose is accurate. Usually they mean literal. They also want good and reliable explanatory notes for the reader.

Making such a recommendation is like telling someone what automobile is best to buy. While there are many good automobiles, so much depends on what each person needs and how the Bible will be used. In the end, a number of very personal preferences will have to be satisfied.

Note: This Instructable is limited to information about how Bible translations come to be, and choosing a Bible version (translation) for oneself. I did include some things about some passages I check as "test" passages, and things I have learned over the years about those passages; but, I do not necessarily expect others to agree with my comments on those passages. This Instructable will not seek to convince anyone about what the Christian faith is or whether it is true, whether the Bible is God's word, nor who Jesus Christ is. If you wish to discuss any of those things, please send me a private message rather than use the Comments section. 

Unless otherwise noted, all images are from Bing Images.
 

Step 1: Dynamic equivalence or literal translation?

Most people I meet have never studied a second language. They make the incorrect assumption that translating from one language to another is like removing one plug from an electrical outlet and inserting another. When you are finished running an electric vacuum cleaner, you unplug it from the wall and plug in a lamp in its place. That is, when you have a phrase in one language you wish to translate, you simply find the proper words in a dictionary and replace each word with another from the new language.

But, languages are different from one another in many ways. For example, in English an adjective comes before a noun. So, English speakers say, "A red ball." In many other languages, the adjective comes after the noun it describes. In those languages, "A ball red" is the correct usage. Simply replacing words can result in what sounds like nonsense.

And, each language has its own idiomatic expressions. For example, a very literal translation of Matthew 1:18 would be, "She was found having in the belly." That is the expression Matthew used to say Mary was pregnant. So, would you want that phrase rendered literally in the Bible you use; or should it be conveyed with words that express the intended meaning, even if words not in the text are required to say it? Most of us would rightly choose the accuracy of the thought over the literalness of the words.  

Translators can make every effort to be as literal as possible, but often it will be necessary to use whatever words are required to preserve the accuracy of the thought, even if the words used must be changed. Once people understand what must be done to communicate something from one language in another language, they can accept a reasonable amount of dynamic equivalence in translation, even if it means literalness must be compromised a little. 

On a personal note, my parents gave me my first Bible when I was ten years old. It was the King James Version (KJV). I noticed that some words and phrases were in italics. One day I learned those italicized words were not actually part of the original text, but had to be added for the sentences to make sense in English. That bothered me for quite a while. How did I know those words really belonged? A few years later I was studying Latin and German in preparation for becoming a pastor. Later I would also study Greek and Hebrew. I soon learned the difficulties of moving information from on language to another and some of the adjustments that had to be made to keep the meaning the same, even if the words had to change. My anxieties about those italicized words evaporated very quickly.

Comments

[Vinstepula]

I like this instructable. I was kinda hesitant on reading it because I have seen many people stick to one version or another. You did a pretty good job. The message I got was to study multiple versions. While it is true the Bible has been translates multiple times and there could be more errors in it than we realize, I believe God will show us, through the spirit, what is truth. No matter how it is worded. Which is why I think it is important to pray while reading the Bible, no matter what versions.
I haven't read any other versions than KJV, but when I was a missionary teaching others, they usually used a different version. There are differences when it came to doctrine between different churches. But I wouldn't cry about it because if you are open to it, God will still lead you.

I admire that you have read the greek translation. I would love to read the Bible in greek and hebrew, only I don't know those languages.

[Phil B]

Thank you for looking at this Instructable and for commenting. One of our teachers encouraged typing three or four different versions below each other line by line when working with a difficult passage. That was before computers. Today that would be much easier, or at least it would be easy to line up verses in parallel columns. Translations are commentaries in the sense that an expression in Hebrew may be very difficult to understand. The translator must make some choices based on what he believes the text intends. He could do that based on the context and what he believes would follow next. He could rely on the flow of a similar discussion in another part of the Old Testament. He could also do that based on how the Greek Septuagint rendered the passage. But, such translation difficulties pertain to very minor things, not to any important doctrines. (As an example, our Sunday morning Bible class just covered Judges 3:22. Does the text say Ehud's sword came out between Eglon's legs, or does it say the contents of Eglon's intestines came out around the hilt of the sword? The grammar of the Hebrew text makes it very difficult to know.) There have been people who have worked independently to learn some Greek or Hebrew. We also have good tools for people who have not studied those languages, like Strong's Numbers. I did another Instructable you might like. Click on this link. It will give you some good access to a very helpful tool for those without training in Greek and Hebrew. 

I have been grateful for the training I received in Greek and Hebrew. Both have been very helpful. I do wish I had worked harder at both, especially Hebrew, which I badly neglected over the years. But, Greek has always been more useful than Hebrew, at least to me.

God does guide our studies of His Word, and I believe blesses sincere attempts to sit under His tutelage through His Word. Often that comes in the form of expressions or mental pictures that enable communicating in clear ways that help our hearers better assimilate what we are trying to teach them.

[parrster]

Thanks Phil, didn't read it all, but just wanted to commend you for a fine instructable (that which I did read at least :)
I have been very impressed by all your published content so far, keep up the good work, and God bless.

[Phil B]

Thank you, and God bless.

[kparton]

When I was very young I tried to read the Bible. The wording was very hard for me to understand, so I gave up. Old Testament books are still hard for me! I went for a time as an atheist, grew to an agnostic, then matured to a Christian. I eventually became a Mormon, which has required a greater commitment of me than I have sometimes wished. When I first began reading and studying, I found it difficult. What I found very helpful was to purchase multiple translations and read and study with all of them open. Although many of the versions aren't generally used in my church setting, or aren't "official", I find that modern language or red letters sometimes help me to better understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Phil B]

Comparing versions as you do is a very good tactic and highly recommended for the person who has not had the opportunity to learn to read any of the biblical languages.

[dejure]

Re "Such changes are hardly large or significant," it would seem if there is an "insignificant" change in one place, it is likely there are others. It is such changes that sprout religions (e.g., Baptist, Catholic, Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.).

An example of the importance of even minor changes might be seen in the matter of celebrations, like Easter and Christmas (back to that game of telephone again), or trinity, security of the believer and other doctrine concepts.

These are not small matters. I know of a spouse who, while holding herself out as a pious Christian, was willing to divorce her husband because he would not celebrate Christmas for its pagan origins. Later, when he refused to believe Jesus prayed to himself, sat at his own right hand, handed the keys of the Kingdom back to himself and so forth, she did divorce him on her vague stances.

[Phil B]

The changes, themselves, are not significant, but that does not keep individuals from excesses like you describe.

[static]

In the end it really doesn't matter by what means you choose the Bible you will use. There will come a time when you will run into Christians that will tell you used went about it in the wrong way, and you chose to use the wrong Bible. Has always baffled, frustrated me that a book described as divinely inspire, and with out error has produced so many editions of itself, and so many Christian denominations, that sect seems a better term than denomination.

You took on a tough challenge Phil. I will not even attempt to judge how well you did in in fulfilling that challenge. Because it deals with faith, and respectfully no one alive knows the truth. Not like I'm shy about commenting. On some of your more down to Earth instructables I do know enough to comment on errors,and add additional information,and have.

[Dumbhead]

Thank you for a well written and carefully researched Instructable. I found it interesting reading.

I noticed that although your page is headed by an image of the Tetragrammaton that you did not include some discussion on the frequency of the Tetragammation in the original bible texts, (more than 7000 times) and the translation options that have been presented to modern translators.

While not wanting to detract from any notes that you may wish to add, here is some information that some readers may find interesting.

The Tetragrmmaton is widely viewed as the personal name of God. It directly translates out to the letters YHVH (or YHWH) without vowel sounds, which were inserted by the reader. This required that the reader would know which vowel sounds to insert. However, over the years this knowledge has been lost, largely due to a growing more recent belief that the personal name of God is too sacred to pronounce. It is now common practice to use the substitution ‘Adonai’ (the Hebrew for 'Lord') or ‘LORD’ in many translations. Interestingly, this is possibly the only example of where the older Bible translations may be more accurate than the newer translations, since many of them, including the King James version make use of a popular rendition of the name of God. (Ps 83:18) Some modern versions of the Bible that do not use Gods name in the text explain why they chose not to in the Foreword or in the Translators notes.

While an admittedly contentious issue with many, the Bible itself in many places presents an explicit and clear Divine Mandate for stressing and publishing proper knowledge of God’s name. Here are two such instances:
Jeremiah 33:2 "YHVH Who made the earth, Who formed it and set it firm - YHVH is His Name - says this: 'Call to Me and I will answer you ...'"
Isaiah 12:4 "Give thanks to YHVH - call His Name aloud. Proclaim His deeds to the nations,declare His Name sublime. Sing of YHVH, for He has done marvelous things - let it be known to the whole world!".

Many hold that God’s personal name should be used more often in modern translations so as to conform with what may really be the more correctly interpreted instruction of Exod. 20:7 concerning the use of His Name: viz. "Do not make His Name worthless" "Lo tisah et Shem YHVH Eloheicha l'shav." By withholding the proclamation of His Name, we may well be guilty of "making His Name worthless."

Thanks again for your instructable.

[dejure]

And don't forget:

1) God's son said he would make his father's name known;

2) Some well known Bibles use "God" (upper case g) where the Teragrammaton was removed. Elsewhere, it is "god" (lower case).

[Phil B]

Thank you for your comment. I did use the Tetragrammaton ("the four letters") as an image. In my mind, it was not exactly what I was looking for in that step, but as close as I could get. When I was discussing additional things in The Preface of the NIV that are worth reading and knowing, I mentioned 'Lord' and 'LORD,' which is, of course, the distinction most English (and other, including German) versions make between 'Adonai' (Lord) and YHWH in the text (LORD). My favorite translation of the Divine Name is by Franz Rosenzweig and Martin Buber in "Die Schrift" (a German paraphrase of the Old Testament from a Jewish perspective). They note that the same verbal form used in Exodus 3:14 for the Divine Name also occurs in Exodus 3:12 as the verb of the sentence, where God promised to be with Moses. Rosenzweig and Buber rendered it (in German) as, "Ich bin der 'ich bin da.'" It has a repetitive lilt in the syllables that rolls off of the tongue, and (more importantly) it means, "I am the One Who is there with you."

[aesipov]

Thank you very much for the article: My cross

[aesipov]

Thank you very much for the article: My cross

[aesipov]

Thank you very much for the article: My cross

[aesipov]

Thank you very much for the article: My cross

[cojonc]

Noting that religion is a highly personal and subjective subject, even while realizing that a minority seemed to enjoy your post, but would the people be so accepting if others placed their differing or anti religious views here also? Probably not, and some could possibly be banned were they to attempt it.

In view of such possibilities, I would like to object to having specific religious, governmental, philosophical viewpoints on the instructables site. I feel these matters are best contained within specialized sites, keeping Instructables out of the fray.

[kparton]

As an addition to my other post, I also have not found significant differences in the meaning of different translations. And personally, I don't believe that any "translations" are an attempt to deceive the reader.

[Phil B]

Your story is an interesting one. Older translations present unnecessary difficulties for contemporary readers. Historically, there have been some "translations" that consciously sought to change the text in order to further an aim of those sponsoring the "translation." Your strategy of making comparisons between several translations is a good one. Although not within the scope of this Instructable, a good Bible dictionary (also sometimes called a Bible encyclopedia) is a very helpful tool. These can explain a lot of background matters that suddenly make the message of the text understandable. A really useful Bible dictionary usually is as large as a Bible, itself. If more people had been more conversant with their Bibles, 900 people would not have followed Jim Jones to the jungles of Guyana in 1977 where they all died drinking poisoned Kool-Aid in November 1978. Thank you for your comment.

[cfullerton]

Phil B.

It's been brought to my attention by staff, that I was not tactful enough in my comments. I sincerely apologize, not for what I said but for how I said it. I have voluntarily removed those comments that I felt weren't tactful enough, since I'm not able to edit and reword them.

It was NOT my intention to be taken as a troll. My intention was to point out that there are other points of view and possibly open a friendly discussion on it. However, when you get on the subject of religion, some aren't strong enough to discuss it openly without getting upset. To those people I apologize if I stumbled you.

This is my last post here.

[Phil B]

Thank you. I am sure all here have a great deal of respect for you for this, as do I.

[Ranie-K]

You shall not steal other people's images and not credit the owner's appropriately!

"Google images" is NOT enough!

[Phil B]

I understood it was. I remember a discussion about this earlier on Instructables and the encouragement was to acknowledge Google Images, etc.

[kelseymh]

There have been multiple such discussions, Phil :-) Generally speaking, that acknowledgement is acceptable.

If you are able to determine the "original" source (which is often not the case with images that have been passed from blog to blog to Web site to e-mail ad infinitum), it's better to cite them directly. That also affords you the opportunity (if you wish) to better determine the copyright status of the image.

Another option, for those who are copyright paranoid, is to use images from Wikipedia instead of Google/Bing/Yahoo/whatever. The Wikipedia editors have already done the hard work of clearing copyright hurdles for all the images they use (which is often why an image you might "expect" to be in an article isn't there!), and they provide provenance as well.

[Ranie-K]

Google images show other people's images. Just because you find them there, doesn't give you permission for you to show them other places as park of your work. Both Copyright and Registered trademarks are violated in this article.

Yes -find your "stock" pictures in Wikipedia or in Wikipedia Commons, but you still need to pay attention to the pictures' licensing and credit them properly if you do so.

[cfullerton]

(removed by author or community request)

[Phil B]

(removed by author or community request)

[cfullerton]

Also in reference to Colossians 1:15 You are mistaken.. it does not say All other creation in verse 15.

(Colossians 1:15-17) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, NWT Reference Bible.

Notice it puts it in Brackets []. This shows that it's added to assist in understanding. I don't see many other Versions or Translations for that matter that do this. If he is the firstborn OF ALL CREATION, then he is included AS PART OF creation. (Caps are for emphasis not yelling) Therefore, Jesus was not eternal, he was created by Jehovah God.

[cfullerton]

(removed by author or community request)

[mdog93]

have you ever read any of the street bible

[Phil B]

I have not. I had not heard of it, but found it at Amazon. There I saw a bit of Genesis 1. It reminds me of something I saw a number of years ago in a bookstore called "The Cottonpatch Bible." I suppose it would be categorized as a paraphrase, somewhat like Eugene Peterson's "The Message" or "The Living Bible."

[gapostol]

What is the point of being a pastor if you "do not seek to convince anyone about what the Christian faith is or whether it is true, whether the Bible is God's word, nor who Jesus Christ is?"

[Phil B]

You must understand proselytizing is not appropriate in this setting. I once did an Instructable on Learning New Testament Greek. One person commented that the title made him fear it would be an attempt to convert readers, but he was pleasantly surprised to see that it was a nice instructive guide. I did another that was a basic introduction to Christian symbols. It is an attempt to explain things we all often see in artwork and imagery, but may not recognize. I had several people accusing me in their comments of trying to promote my brand of religion, even though I tried to keep it very even handed and absent of proselytizing. If I had used this Instructable or the others I linked to promote a case for the Christian faith, I would have been widely flamed by numbers of readers, and rightly so. Chances are those Instructables would also have been removed as spam. 

[drobins]

Thank you. As an agnostic, it's so much easier to listen to the pastors who teach ABOUT their religion, and let people come to the faith if it moves them, without shoving it down their throats. You seem like the type that would be able to have long, rational discussions about faith and religion without making someone uncomfortable about it, which I believe is really practicing the love you preach.

[Phil B]

Thank you. I have long tried to take a long, slow, rational approach. Many times over the years there have been things in all sorts of areas I needed to think about before I was ready to assent, and I did eventually change my thinking. You probably know the saying, "A man convinced against his will remains unconvinced still." I never appreciate someone trying to arm wrestle me into something I am not ready to endorse. BTW, if ever you would like to discuss some question with me, please feel free to send a private message. Thank you for looking and for commenting.

[gapostol]

For there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby WE MUST BE SAVED (Acts 4:10-12). Salvation can only be found in the name of Jesus Christ. You CANNOT find salvation in the name of Allah. You CANNOT find salvation in the name of the Pope. You CANNOT find salvation in the name of Buddha. You CANNOT find salvation in the name of a religion or a denomination. You CANNOT find salvation in the name of an evangelist. You can only find salvation in the person of Jesus Christ. This is God’s plan. (now they can banned me)

[mdog93]

probably, it'd aimed at teenagers

[Phil B]

Do you like it and find it helpful?

[mdog93]

erm, hard to comment really. I think it is quite good, but then i do not particularly struggle to understand a standard bible, however, I know many my age or younger wouldn't understand the language used.

[JohnJY]

Look at the Revolution Bible for Guys in the New Living Translation, it's perfectly aimed at teens and is my favorite Bible to use.