Which English Translation of the Bible is Best for You?

A Comparison of over 50 English Translations of the Bible

by Gary Kukis

Updated September 16, 2012

Because this is a 200+ page document, I am going to begin separating it out into it component parts, as of September 16, 2012. All updates will be done to the component parts and not to this document.

This is not a work which requires you to begin reading on page 1 and continue on to page2 and then page 3. Quite likely, you may want to skip over much of this and go directly to the Summary Table (which is followed by some very important tables. At a glance, you will learn what you need to about your translation and about the others which are out there. Once you have looked over some of the tables, then you may have an interest in reading about a particular translation or two. Because of this, I moved the hyperlinks to the very beginning of this document to provide you easier and quicker access.

E-Sword information:

At this time, I do not know the difference between e-sword 8 and e-sword 9 (I use version 8). However, it takes some work to load both programs onto your computer (apparently, it can be done), but the modules are not compatible.

You must create an account (free) to download modules from e-sword users.

Apparently all versions at www.e-sword.org are now just for 9.x Many of these translations do exist for e-sword 8.x and below, although I may not have listened them.

http://www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/ lists a number of online translations, some of which are quite bizarre.

Check this:

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/bible-faq/10-Which-English-translation-of-the-Holy-Bible-is-best-Here.html

http://www.ovc.edu/terry/interpretation/translat.htm

A Basic Overview of all the Translations:

A more in-depth view:

P reface: This is an examination of the many translations of the Bible into English. As you read through this, I think you are going to be rather surprised. Generally those interested in which translation of Scripture is best are often conservative, fundamental, evangelical Christians. You will be surprised to know that one of the more modern translations, which has very conservative, evangelical leanings, is also one of the most inaccurate translations available. You may be surprised to know that one translation which is both in modern English and yet remains quite faithful to the original text is a translation that you very likely have never even seen. You will be surprised to note that the version which has the best footnotes dealing with textual criticism is a version that you have never heard of before (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible). The most literal English translation is also a version that you have never heard of before (Young’s Literal Translation). You will be surprised to know that one of the very best of the modern translations (of the Old Testament) was not made by a Christian or a group of Christians, but was translated by the Jewish Publication Society. One of the surprising weaknesses of most translations is a serious lack of consistency (consistency is the quality of rendering the same Greek (or Hebrew) word with the same English word time and time again). However, there is one very consistent translation available to you, and yet, you probably have never heard of it (again, Young’s Literal Translation).

What is the best English translation of Scripture? When I began this study, I already knew the answer to this; by the time I finished, I changed my mind—several times. In fact, I came to conclusions that surprised me (and I had studied the Bible for several decades prior to writing this).

Selecting the right Bible (or Bibles) is one of the most important decisions that you will make, yet few give this decision much thought. You might use the Bible that has been laying around your house unread for several decades; you might use the Bible your church uses, or you simply pick up a pulpit copy. Maybe a Christian friend suggested this translation or that. At best, you may glance through a quarter page comparison between a dozen choices, and select a translation based upon that. One thing which will surprise you, when you read this book, is that the best translation for Timothy is not necessarily the best translation for Paul.

What you will find out when you read this book is that there are more issues at stake then you first realized; I expect that you will change your mind once or twice, even though friends of your might not use the word open-minded when they describe you.

If you do not want to wade through a lot of reading (this document is about 200 pages and it desperately needs some editing), then your are welcome to go immediately to the Summative Table, which is found directly below.

T o the Reader: You obviously have an interest in the Bible, which is why you are reading this book right now. You might have one or two Bibles that sit in the trunk of their car, at a pew at their church, on a shelf, or you might even carry it around with you. Someone might say something—a friend, a television or radio preacher, your pastor—and you will reach for the Bible to confirm or negate what they have said. There are occasions when you might find yourself in a theological argument, and you will reach to your Bible for support. There are times when you need guidance, times when you study, and you reach for your Bible. You might even be a pastor or a deacon, giving thought to what Bible should be read from, or distributed, or placed in the pews.

More than likely, you know at most a handful of Greek or Hebrew words. You may or may not be familiar with the history of the Bible, and it is likely that your understanding of textual criticism is sketchy at best. These are topics which are generally the domain of the clergy, and not those generally taken up by the man in the pew. But those who translated your Bible—they (ideally) know the Greek, Aramaic and /or Hebrew; they know about how the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation; they are aware of the manuscripts which are in existence at this time and their relative importance and significance. It is their job to make certain that all of these things have been taken into consideration while they produce yet another modern English translation of Scripture. What you need to know, as a consumer, is, how close is my Bible to the original languages? Were the Dead Sea Scrolls considered? Should they have been considered? How much confidence can I place in the Bible that I own? If I am holding to any particular belief, is it based upon an accurate rendering of Scripture, or does it simply reflect the theological bias of those who translated my Bible?

The first thing that you will do is turn to the section which deals with your translation of the Bible—that is what you should do. Find out if your Bible is any good. Find out if the translators carefully weighed the nuances of the original languages; find out if they examined the various extent manuscripts; find out if the thrust of their work was producing a Bible that was accurate or readable (which are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals). If your Bible appears to have a few shortcomings, then browse this book to find another translation which might be more suited for you (yes, given your background, theological training and formal education, one translation may be better suited for you in particular).

You may have an older version of the Bible—a KJV, the ASV or the RSV—and you want to get something that is easier to read. What exactly will be sacrificed in order to find a more readable version? You may have been raised on the KJV and you want a more modern version—should you turn to the NKJV? Will it simply be more of the same old, same old? Should you purchase a TEV, CEV or an NIV?

In fact, let me say a word about which is the best translation that you can acquire: when I began this project, I thought that I would be able to provide a list of the translations in order from best to worst—you know, a top ten list for the best translations of the Bible. I was wrong—after spending considerable time on this project, I decided that choosing a Bible can be a fairly individual thing, and rightfully so. Now, I will certainly be able to group various translations—there are a half-dozen which are clearly the best and a smaller handful that you do not need to own. But, as to which translation you personally should choose? You will answer that question for yourself, I will only help facilitate that decision.

I expect that this book will perform two primarily functions: First, this book will allow you to examine your primary Bible critically, to note its strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, this book will help you to make a reasonable selection for a second or third Bible; or it will help you to choose another primary translation to use.

I should also mention that you don’t have to read each and every page in order to make an informed decision. I have intentionally summarized each translation at the beginning and have grouped the translations into various categories at the end, so that you can skim through this book, and stop and examine it more carefully when you need more detailed information. Do you want to know which translations are approved by the Catholic Church, but you don’t want to read through each and every section of this book? I took care of that for you. It’s at the end of this book in the summary. Do you want to know which translations took into account the manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Summarized at the end of this book. Let’s say you are going to buy a Bible for a friend or family member with limited reading skills—I’ve placed those recommendations in the summary. In other words, what I expect is that you might read through a few of the summaries, then you will find yourself going back to the individual sections to get more information. My point is, this book lends itself to skimming or perusing; to reading from front to back or back to front.

And one more thing: this book changed my mind, the author, about many of these translations.

That being said, I should admit to certain prejudices (which I believe to be Biblically based). First of all, I do prefer a more literal version over a less literal version. If a particular phrase is an idiom, then I would rather see the gist of the idiom revealed in a footnote rather than attempted in the text itself. Secondly, I am not a sympathizer of the charismatic movement. I disagree with several key points of their theology (notably, their modern take of speaking in tongues, healing and the possibility of losing one’s salvation). Thirdly, I would prefer to capitalize the pronouns which refer to any of the members of the Godhead (in fact, I would prefer capitalizing many things associated with God’s Word and various things which have been ordained by God). These predispositions being admitted to, still I believe I was able to present a very objective examination of the various texts. With regards to these points of doctrine, I simply will point out which translation holds to this doctrine, and which does not; which capitalizes those words associated with the Godhead and which does not. Interestingly enough, the translations which seem to have been influenced by the charismatic movement also tend to be the translations which do not capitalize pronouns which refer to any member of the Godhead. These translations also tend to be those which are more of a thought-for-thought translation, as opposed to a word-for-word translation.

P reface: What follows is a rather lengthy comparison of the various common English translations which I personally use. I originally expected this to be about 20–30 pages long; it is now in excess of 180 pages. Please do not mistake this for the tripe which I have run across on a regular basis where some old guy puts forth a half dozen arguments as to why we should all use the King James Version. There was a time period, particularly for the middle of the 20^th century, that each time some translations came out, that there would be this set of pastors on the sidelines railing against each new translation, simultaneously touting the virtues of the authorized version. In many cases, these were simply traditionalists with little to say, their best argument often being that, when it comes to memorizing Scripture, we need one version so that everyone will memorize each verse in the same way.

On the other hand, there were a handful of men who did give some reasonable arguments against some of the modern translations. A fellow named Moser put out several pamphlets disparaging many of the modern translations. Sometimes his arguments were petty; however, many times he criticized them with good reason. In fact, it was through reading his pamphlets that I became much more discerning in my examination of the modern English translations.

When I began this project, I really assumed that I would be able to come to the conclusion, “Everyone ought to purchase such and such a translation.” And, if I was to lay money on it, I would have initially bet that I would strongly recommend that everyone purchase the NASB. I have since discovered that there are a great many factors involved when purchasing a Bible. Most people should have at least two translations, and it is almost impossible to give a blanket recommendation as to which translations these should be. However, if you do not want to wade through all of this information, then feel free to go to the Summative Table, where I will sum up the strengths and weaknesses of the various translations. Now that I have come very nearly to the end of this never-ending project, I would probably make a blanket recommendation of the NIV Study Bible, even though I believe the NASB and the NKJV to be better translations. However, I do not necessarily mean that you, individually, should purchase that particular translation. As I said, there are a great many factors involved.

Interestingly enough, there are some translations, such as the NLT and the Good News Bible that I was predisposed to dislike; and some that I was predisposed to like (Complete Jewish Bible). However, as I used these various Bibles and began to look at them with a critical eye, I often changed my mind. After examining what the translators did, their viewpoints, and the resulting product, I was very often swayed toward liking many more translations than I expected; and there were a small handful which I would not recommend at all to anybody.

Now, will we ever return to a King James-only usage? No; not in this world nor in the next. We have several generations of people who have been raised on versions other than the King James Version, who, if they picked up a KJV, would not understand it. Given that we must accept that there are other translations out there which are not going to go away, the best we can hope for is that those who obtain a Bible for themselves actually give some thought as to which translation would most suit them. An important point that I want to make, which will cause some of you to grind your teeth, by the way, is that choosing one or two translations can be a very personal choice. That is, for me, if I had to choose between the NASB, the NIV or TEV, such a choice would be easy—I would select the NASB. However, there are others who, for various individual reasons, would be better off choosing the NIV or the TEV. Prior to my examination of these translations, I would never have thought that I would come to a conclusion like that. My original intent was almost to list these translations in descending order from best to worst. Having examined them in detail, I no longer feel that is appropriate.

About four years after I began this project, I noticed that my examinations of the various English translations were becoming longer and longer—some of them exceeding ten pages. It was then that I realized that I needed a synopsis of each translation at the beginning. Now you can go from translation to translation and get a brief synopsis of each.

When someone chooses to write about any particular topic; especially when comparing and contrasting different things, there are two things which are true: (1) the writer feels passionately about that which he writes; and, (2) he has an opinion already. Unless it is his job, a writer is not going to write about something that he cares little about. Just like any other artist, a writer is practically forced by his soul to express himself. And no one is going to start writing about topics that he is ambiguous about. So, certainly, I had biases prior to beginning this project, yet I promised myself that I would approach this project with a relatively open mind (and, as a matter of fact, I did change my mind about certain translations—in fact, I changed my mind several times as I examined these various translations). And, interestingly enough, the more I studied the various translations, the more open-minded I became about this topic. For instance, there were translations which I eschewed at the beginning, that, when I began to study them, I became less convinced of my original position; and, near this project’s end, I could see where such a translation would have a proper place in this world. To be more specific, when I began this project, I had a decided prejudice in favor of literal translations and I repudiated that which was a paraphrase. Now, a year and a half after beginning this project, and even though I prefer a good literal translation for most of my own work, I acknowledge a real need for those translations which are less than literal, but which convey the original ideas more clearly. However, I have also noticed, as I looked more carefully, that many of the newer, modern-English translations tend to have become more liberal in their theology. It is not that the essential doctrines of the faith are completely lost in some of these translations; however, some are more obscure and more difficult to uncover than they are in the older, more word-for-word literal translations. My point being that, certainly you should own a modern-English version which is easier for you to understand; however, you may want to choose that version carefully, and, for personal, in-depth studies, use a more literal translation (e.g., the KJV, NKJV, NASB, Young’s Literal Translation or The Emphasized Bible).

Now, when I began this, was I out to come up with as many reasons as I could to disparage this translation or that? Not really. As mentioned, I had some personal prejudices which I believe I shed. What I have attempted to do is as follows: (1) I want you first to have a general feel for each translation which I cover; (2) I want to give you an idea as to how close to the Greek or Hebrew that each translation is; (3) I want to let you know if there is any discernable slant or prejudice in the translation itself; (4) and finally, I want to give you enough information to make an informed decision when buying your next translation. I can almost guarantee that, if you are reading this, that you will end up buying another translation or two.

I found out soon enough that all modern-English translations were not equal. This certainly seems like a fairly obvious point. However, the types of inequities quite frankly surprised me. The CEV, which is one of the most fundamentalist-leaning translations, is also one of the least literal. It is as though the translator examined the original passage in the Hebrew or Greek, took a nap, and then woke up and wrote down from memory what might be a reasonable paraphrase. The result is that the CEV is littered with words and phrases which have no actual counterpart in the original language. God’s Word™ struck me as having a rather presumptuous name and I originally just tossed it into my pile of here’s another modern English translation. Well, it turns out that they offer probably the most literal of the modern English translations, their accuracy being very close to that of the NASB or the NKJV. However, once and awhile, they insert a few important words which are not found in the original languages. Two charismatics pointed me in the direction of The Open Bible, which is the New Living Translation. I automatically assumed that this version would lean toward a charismatic interpretation. Wrong. In terms of the theological leanings, this is a very accurate Biblical translation. On the other hand, the NRSV, which I assumed would be fundamentalist in all regards, leans toward the charismatic point of view, something that I would have never guessed prior to entering into this study.

Are there versions you should avoid? Absolutely—there are several modern translations of the Bible out there that you should avoid at all costs. They are inaccurate and slanted. There are others out there which, on the one hand are reasonable, but get way too imaginative at times. Once you have read through most of this, you will know where your translation stands and whether or not you need another translation for your own personal study.

Now my purpose is this: If you have read this far, then you have some interest in the translations which you have or you are interested in picking up a couple of additional English translations to add to your theological collection. Let’s say you are looking for a more obscure translation, and you cannot decide between Young’s Literal Translation or Moffatt’s Translation (a very easy decision, by the way); I am hoping that you will benefit by the work that I have put in here as to determining what translation or additional translation that you will seek out. Just owning these Bibles and making occasional reference to them actually is not enough. When I began this project, I owned about 25 different translations and/or flavors of translations. At that time, I could not have told you which translation had a more liberal bend, which held to orthodoxy, which was sympathetic to the Catholic Church. As I continue in this study, I have found these things out and am passing them along to you.

I need to point out that this is a work in progress, and not all of the translations listed above will be found below. Bear in mind that I am working on them as we speak. Because of a kind word said by Titus in his links (when I posted this on the web several years ago), I went back to work on this and this is much improved over what I had here before. Furthermore, if you would like to cut to the chase and go directly to the conclusions, bypassing all the excess, then click on this.

I should also mention that there are often partial and extended quotes and paraphrases from the prefaces of these Bibles which are not so identified. You may assume that any phrase of more than three words which is italicized came from the Bible which is being reviewed. The primary purpose of this is to provide an easy comparison between the Bibles herein discussed. It appears as though the dark green type refers to a fairly literal translation and that the blue type is a much freer translation. Those in black are somewhere in the middle.

One important consideration is from what manuscripts are these translations taken? Many of you possibly even think that there is some perfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts out there upon which a translation should be based. Wrong! In the Old Testament, although there are several Hebrew manuscripts, our oldest dates back to the end of the first millennium a.d. (and the reason is that, when a new manuscript was copied, the old one was destroyed). The vowel points for the Hebrew were not added until thousands of years after the original manuscripts were written (there were no vowels whatsoever in original written Hebrew). There are clearly mistakes and problems with the Hebrew manuscripts, and there are clearly places where words were left out, words are unintelligible, and words whose meanings are long gone. What a translator does at this point is a key to his philosophy as both a translator and as a scholar of the original manuscripts. The ancient Koine Greek is a better known language which is much easier for us to crack. The Hebrew Bible, around 200 b.c., was translated into the Greek. Therefore, this Greek Old Testament provides us invaluable helps in determining the meaning of some words and verses. However, this was a very uneven translation. Most of the Law was well-translated from the Hebrew to the Greek; however, several books, e.g., Kings, was very poorly translated. Furthermore, there was no careful consensus on what type of translation was to be done then (it was the first translation of an ancient book ever done). Therefore, some books and passages are rendered very literally and some are given a very free translation. It’s kind of like half of the Bible was translated by Robert Young (a staunch literalist) and the other half was done by the Good News Bible people. And then these versions were shuffled together. So, what a translator does with the Greek manuscripts is very telling. Do they depend upon it too much? Do they use it wisely?

This leads me to say a few words about Textual Criticism. Some believers think that there is one accurate Hebrew manuscript and one accurate Greek manuscript that we follow in order to get our English translation. To be more precise, many Christians don’t really give much thought at all to the original language source for our English translations. With regards to the New Testament, there are 24,000 ancient Greek manuscripts which are employed. Some of these manuscripts have the entire text of the New Testament; some are only fragments of the New Testament. Some of these texts were copies made less one century after the original writing was done. Some were made several hundred years later. However, these 24,000 manuscripts are not in complete agreement. The science of textual criticism is to come up with a manuscript which will reflect what is believed to be the most accurate Greek text with respect to the original writings. Quite frankly, the New Testament can be pinned down to a fairly exact rendering of the original text.

However, the Old Testament is something else again. First of all, for centuries, our best Hebrew manuscripts were copies made a millennium after the closing of the Hebrew canon, and which had the addition of chapters, verses and vowels, none of which were present in the originals. Furthermore, we only had a handful of these Hebrew manuscripts. What we had in addition to these few Hebrew manuscripts were Greek translations of the Hebrew. Even though the Greek translation (called the Septuagint) was made within 200 years of the closing of the canon, it was a very uneven translation—some portions of Scripture were carefully and literally rendered, and other portions were a paraphrase. And there isn’t just one Greek manuscript, but there are many versions of the Septuagint and many revisions of same. In addition to this, there are translations of the Hebrew made into other languages, as well as paraphrases from the Hebrew into other ancient languages. So, the job of the Old Testament textual critic is much tougher than that of the New Testament textual critic. The Old Testament manuscripts are in a variety of languages, some portions of which are careful translations, some portions of which are paraphrases; and the time between the closing of the canon and the manuscripts which we possess is a matter of hundreds of years rather than tens of years. What has been helpful is that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given us some additional manuscripts which are closer in time to the original Old Testament writings.

The more that you know about textual criticism, the more important an issue it will become to you. Personally, I don’t want a Bible which simply footnotes this is how this verse should read; the Masoretic text is somewhat different. I would like to know upon which manuscripts these deviations are based. So far, no translation is completely satisfactory in this regard (although two translations might be classified as good when it comes to substantiating their choice of readings). There are many modern English translations which render the text as they see fit and do not footnote a passage which is based upon a variant reading.

You will notice, as you read portions of this book, that I have spent more time examining the Old Testament than the New with regards to these various translations. There are several reasons for this: (1) The Old Testament is where there is the most disagreement and there are two primary source manuscripts which are followed: the Hebrew text (which is what the Old Testament was originally written in) and the Septuagint (the Greek text, a translation of the Hebrew into the Greek)—which are followed. Which translation leans toward one or the other is important. (2) Our knowledge of ancient Greek is far superior to our knowledge of ancient Hebrew; therefore, the Old Testament Greek text is extremely important for this reason. Also, the Greek translation is based up manuscripts which are over a millennium older than the manuscripts which we have. (3) Now, in contrast, there are simply Greek texts which are our concern with the New Testament. There tends to be a greater agreement between the various Greek texts. (4) Finally, most of my own personal exegetical work is in the Old Testament, so most of my illustrations and comparisons will come from the Old Testament.

Not only are there many different translations of the Bible, but there are many flavors of various translations. I personally own (as of this writing) around 40 different translations of the Bible, versions of translations, and compilations of translations. For instance, there are many flavors of the King James Bible. If one must own and work out of the KJV, then I see the only reasonable choice as being Scofield’s Reference Bible. If you want to go with the NIV, then by all means, pick up the NIV Study Bible (or The Narrated Bible). The included features are certainly worth the extra few dollars. As I go through these various translations, I will also comment on the versions which I own and the extras which come with them.

I cannot over-emphasize that for your primary Bible, buy the expensive binding. In retrospect, I have never regretted picking up the Bible with the expensive leather binding; however, I also own several Bible’s which are now held together by tape—Bibles whereby originally I saved a few dollars by purchasing cheaper binding—those purchases I regret. If you ever have to transfer the notes that you make in the margins from one worn Bible to the same translation, you will recognize the importance of getting a Bible with a good binding (although such an exercise is not a waste of time).

I have recently discovered some lengthy pamphlets (about 80 pages each) dealing with very, very negative reviews of Today’s English Version, The New English Bible, and The Living Bible. They are all written by the same person (M. L. Moser, Jr.). Now, having admitted to some predisposition toward the literal translations, I have also been won over, in part, by some of these thought-for-thought translations as being reasonable versions of Scripture to own. As I perused Moser’s books, I must admit that he had some very valid points. I had first dismissed him as a KJV-only preacher who was only justifying his position. However, upon a closer examination of the passages which he had problems with, I was forced to admit that many of the new translations veer both in theologically and in translation from the KJV. In most cases, their translation reflects a theological predisposition rather than upon a more accurate rendering of the original language or a more up-to-date rendering of the original. There are certain theological areas where some of the modern translations have gone soft (e.g., the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the cross). In this age of sloppy theology, such things demand a careful examination. In several instances, my examination of some of these translations was both superficial and too accepting. I have attempted, in some of the Bible translations which I have re-examined, to be more critical of what they have done with regards to orthodox doctrine. I must herein give credit to Moser for causing me to more carefully examine these various translations than I had previously.

It is important to recognize that we are in a spiritual war. I have spoken to believers who attend churches whose doctrines are wrong, but the atmosphere and the fellowship feels right to them. I have seen outstanding ministries become worthless over a short amount of time. I have seen believers sue one another, despite the clear teaching of God’s Word. I have met believers whose personal experience is more important to them than the Word of God. So we should expect that there will be some serious theological problems with some translations. Although I did not think much of Moser simply from the titles of his pamphlets, I must admit that he brought home some important points concerning the translations of God’s Word where some orthodox doctrines are carefully watered down by the wording of the translation. The discovery of Moser’s pamphlets has caused me to go back and to re-examine many of the translations in the light of particular passages.

Note to self: I have not done the entirety of any translation yet. I have only gone through the first page of the NASB and of the first introduction of the Complete Parallel Bible (NAS, NJB, NRSV and REB). Also, in this study, I have noticed a great many translations which I do not have, including: Phillips’ NT in Modern English; Wuest’s Expanded Translation of the NT; An American Translation by William F. Beck; The NT in Plain English by Charles Kingsley Williams; The Letters of Paul: An Expanded Paraphrase by F. F. Bruce; the Jerusalem Bible; Ronald Knox’s Catholic Version; the Confraternity Version; The Berkeley Version; and The Living Bible.

Significant Passages

There are certain passages of Scripture which are extremely important theologically, and therefore, need to be rendered correctly. When it comes to salvation, we should look at a couple of representative passages: John 3:16 and 6:28–29. When it comes to the person of Christ, John 14:6, 9. Prophesies about Jesus Christ: Isa. 7:14 9:6–7 Matt. 1:23. Inspiration of Scripture: Heb. 4:12 2Peter 2:20–21.

I will examine each Bible translation individually; however, prior to this, it would be a good idea just to see what each Bible says with regards to the most important doctrines of Scripture. I think that my approach will be as follows: I will take a few passages, translate them from the Hebrew or Greek; and then see what others have done with them. I will not list every single translation, but I will list those which have missed the mark, in my opinion, and comment as to why. Sometimes, if the rendering is interesting, or has a good footnote, I will list the translation as well. However, most of the time, most of these Bibles are going to accurately render the Hebrew or Greek into English; for this reason, I don’t believe that it is necessary to give out every English translation.

Furthermore, I will not include the complete exegetical table of the Hebrew or Greek, nor will I include my commentary on the verse; however, these can be found in other documents which I have produced.

Prophesies About Jesus Christ:

One of the passages often examined in when various translations are compared is Isa. 7:14

Kukis slavishly literal:             For thus gives Adonai Himself to you a sign: behold, the virgin [is] pregnant and she is bearing a son and she called His name Immanuel.

Kukis moderately literal:         Therefore, Adonai Himself will give you a sign: listen, a virgin [is] with child and she will bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel [which means, God with us].

The complete word-by-word exegesis of the Hebrew of this verse may be found in Isa. 7.

If you have studied and compared the various English translations, you may have come upon this verse, and there are two sides to the argument: some argue that this word unquestionably means virgin and others argue that this is a more general term, and that it can refer simply to a young woman [possibly even married]. I’ve glanced through the passages where this word occurs, and I don’t find its use to compel me one way or the other, apart from this particular passage. Here’s the thing: if a young woman is pregnant or a young married woman is pregnant, then this is not much of a sign. The idea that the Lord Himself gives to you a sign seems to lose its power, if that sign is just that some young woman is going to be pregnant. Now, if that woman is a virgin, then that is a sign!

Here is how others did:

The Amplified Bible                Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel—God with us.

Albert Barnes (revised)          .

BBE                                       For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel. The BBE uses a young woman rather than virgin and includes the adverb now, which is not found or implied in the Hebrew.

Complete Jewish Bible           Therefore Adonai himself

will give you people a sign:

T\the young woman will become pregnant,

bear a son and name him ‘Immanu El [God is with us].

CEV                                       But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel. There are times that the translation of the CEV is absolutely baffling; that is, from where did they get this? However, the CEV also tends to be very accurate doctrinally speaking, so passages like this tend to be accurate.

The Emphasized Bible           Wherefore let My Lord Himself give you a sign,—

Lo! ║a Virgin║ <being with child and giving birth to a son> thou wilt call his name Immanuel. Rotherham gives no fewer than 5 footnotes for this verse. It would be fantastic if someone would update and modernize Rotherham’s translation, taking into consideration the Dead Sea Scrolls which we now have access to. These footnotes give an explanation to Rotherham’s reasons for the translation of certain words in this verse.

ESV                                       .

God’s Word™                         .

HCSB                                     .

HNV                                       .

JPS (Tanakh)                         .

Keil and Delitzsch (revised)   .

KJV (Scofield)                        .

Latin                                       Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

LTHB                                     .

MKJV                                              .

Message                                So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us). Although I am not crazy about the rendering the Master (it is capitalized, however), I am glad to see that the meaning of Immanuel is given.

Moffatt’s Translation              An omen you shall have, and that from the Eternal himself. There is a young woman with child, who shall bear a son and call his name ‘Immanuel’ (God is with us);... Although the Eternal is a nice touch, there is no justification for this in the original languages.

NAB                                       .

NASB                                     .

NEB                                       Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call [or, you will] him Immanuel [that is, God is with us].

NIV                                         .

NJB                                        The Lord will give you a sign in any case:

It is this: the young woman [Perhaps Ahaz’s wife, about to give birth to Hezekiah, but Isaiah sees it as symbolic of the fulfillment of royal messianic prophecies] is with child

and will give birth to a son

whom she will call Immanuel. The NJB has very few footnotes, which is why this one stands out. It is certainly an interesting comment. Very few of the translations offer footnotes or commentary interpreting this verse within the context of the passage.

NKJV                                     .

NLT                                        .

NRSV                                     Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman [Greek, the virgin] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel [that is, God is with us]. The NRSV is the only English translation which points out that the Greek translation of the Hebrew word means the virgin.

NWT                                      Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el.

Owen's Translation                .

REB                                       Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel [that is, God with us].

The Septuagint                      Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and you will call his name Emmanuel.

TEV                                        .

WEB                                      .

Young's Literal Translation     .

Young's Updated LT              .

What is remarkable, and nice to see, is that most of these translations accurate rendered this crucial verse.

Preface:

Translation: The American Standard Version

Translators: Original revision was made by the English and American Revisers; where there were differences, the English Revisers (who initiated the work) would have the authority to make the final pronouncement. Apparently, what was issued was a translation which had an appendix that contained the changes which the Americans preferred but were outvoted by the English (and, interestingly enough, not all American-approved renderings were placed in this appendix). Since the original work, the English Revisers disbanded and the American Revisers continued their work, issuing a translation in 1901.

Date of Translation: This was a revision made of the KJV (1611). From what I can gather, the first revision was a dual effort on the part of American and English translators made between 1881–1885. Although there was talk of doing a revision every 14 years or so, the English counterpart disbanded. In 1901, the American group revised the KJV again, resulting in the American Standard Version.

Stated Purpose: (1) There were certain, specific updates which were done. Jehovah would replace the translation Lord; sheol would be used consistently throughout (rather than grave, pit or hell); and who and that would be used rather than which when referencing persons. (2) There were a number of renderings which were made by the Americans in the original editions which the English overruled—some of these were included in the appendix, some were not. However, these changes were placed into the 1901 ASV. (3) There were changes made to the original KJV which the Americans saw as unwarranted and which injured the original sense of the passage; in these places, the original text was restored. (4) The American Revisers rescinded some changes originally agreed to. (5) The new translation would revise the use of the words justice, judgment and ordinance. In fact, in the preface, there were a number of words which were dealt with individually to indicate how they would be used and how this would be a change from the previous text. (6) These revisers intended to update the obscure language and phrasing. To give you an idea as to the reading level, let me use their text: We are not insensible to the justly lauded beauty and vigor of the style of the Authorized Version, nor do we forget that it was been no part of our task to modernize the diction of the Bible. But we are also aware that the rhetorical force and the antique flavor which we desire to retain do not consist in sporadic instances of uncouth, unidiomatic, or obscure phraseology. While we may freely admit that the English of the Scriptures can, as a whole, hardly be improved, yet it would be extravagant to hold that it cannot be bettered in any of its details. What was once good usage is often such no longer; and we can see no sound reason for retaining such expressions as “smell thereto” (Ex. xxx. 38), “forth of” (instead of “forth from”), etc. (7) The revisers also consulted foreign Bibles (German, French, Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian) for some specific changes. (8) Many of the footnotes of the AV were left out, as they did not really help much with the translation. (9) Headings were added as a benefit to the reader, but not to influence the exegesis of the passage. (10) Careful revisions were made with respect to paragraphs and punctuation.

Manuscripts Used in the Old Testament: The revisionists seemed to do most of their work with the KJV.

Notes on the Old Testament Translation:

Manuscripts Used in the New Testament: The revisionists appeared to do most of their work with the KJV.

Notes on the New Testament Translation:

Portion Translated: Old and New Testaments

Vocabulary: Difficult with much of the Old English retained (thine, thy)

Grade Level: 12^th grade or higher; in fact, I suspect that most 12^th graders would not be able to understand a majority of the preface.

Assumptions Made:

Bias:

Description of Translation:

Capitalization: The pronouns referring to our Lord are not capitalized.

Order of Translation: This follows the standard English order of the Old and New Testament books.

Strong Points: This is a very literal translation.

Weak Points: The ASV retains too much of the Elizabethan language of the KJV.

Criticisms: I should have liked to have seen more of a break from the difficult Elizabethan language of the KJV.

Their Comments:

Layout: Prose looks like prose; poetry like poetry.

Section Headings:

Footnotes: Their footnotes deal exclusively with the translation and alternate renderings.

Personal Comments: I was originally going to let this go without even including this in my comparison of translations, despite the fact that this was the first Bible that I owned (I was an unbeliever at that time). However, there were several things that this translation attempted to do, which appealed to me. Instead of using Lord to refer to the sacred Tetragrammaton YHWH, they were one of the very few translations to render His Name Jehovah.

This version has been supplanted by the more modern New American Standard Bible. I would have preferred to see the NASB retain the use of Jehovah where appropriate.

Additional Features: At the time that this version came out, there were relatively few additional features.

Recommendations: I honestly can’t imagine someone preferring this version over the more modern NASB.

Additional Notes: I don’t know that you could even find a new copy of the ASV.

Preface:

Translation: The Amplified Bible

Translators: It appears to be the Lockman Foundation. It was a group of Hebrew and Greek scholars and special mention is given to Frances E. Siewert, B. Lit., B.D., M.A., D. Lit., the Research Secretary.

Date of Translation: 1958–1965. The New Testament came out in 1958, and the entire Bible came out in 1965.

Stated Purpose:          1.      It should be true to the original languages.

                                     2.      It should be grammatically correct.

                                     3.      It should be understandable to the masses.

                                     4.      It should give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place which the Word gives Him. No work will be personalized.

The Publisher’s Foreword reads, in part: ...scholarly translators have worked diligently on English versions designed to faithfully present the Scriptures. In contemporary language. The Amplified Bible is not an attempt to duplicate what has already been achieved. Rather, its intent is to progress beyond the point where the others have stopped. Its purpose is to reveal, together with the single word English equivalent to each key Hebrew and Greek word, any other clarifying shades of meaning that may be concealed by the traditional word-for-word method of translation. Now, possibly for the first time the full meaning of the key words in the original text is available in an English version of the Bible.

On the inside cover of The Amplified Bible there are comments from various pastors, bishops and theologians (most of them PhD’s). Dr. W. E. Sangster writes No translation from one language to another can ever be exact. Exact translation is as impossible as a square circle. The Amplified New Testament is unique in that its skillful and scholarly parentheses bring out shades of meaning which any normal translation is compelled to arbitrate between. I commend it warmly. It opens the Scriptures in a new way.” 

Manuscripts Used in the Old Testament: The Amplified Bible tends to lean toward the Hebrew MT instead of Greek LXX (e.g., Judges 1:18 2:3 15:5 18:17–18 19:18 1Chron. 1:51a Job 15:30b). Generally, where there is a serious problem, an obvious scribal error, The Amplified Bible will go with the most reasonable reading (example: Judges 10:4). It chose the number thirty from the Hebrew rather than the number thirty-two from the Greek in that same passage. There is a portion of Judges 16:13–14 which is obviously missing from the Hebrew but is found in the Greek; however, The Amplified Bible does not include this in their translation. Similarly, the first sentence of 1Chron. 1:51 is found in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Textual critics would tend to leave it out as well. However, The Amplified Bible includes it. 1Sam. 13:15 is a passage which is very different in the Greek and the Hebrew; the error appears to be with the Hebrew; The Amplified Bible follows the Hebrew. The Amplified Bible follows the Hebrew anyway. In 1Sam. 19:10–11, the final two Hebrew words in v. 10 (that night) are placed with v. 11 in the ancient Greek translation. The Amplified Bible simply placed these two words with v. 10 and then again in v. 11.

Notes on the Old Testament Translation:

Manuscripts Used in the New Testament:

Notes on the New Testament Translation: Tongues in I Cor. 12–14 is generally preceded by [unknown] in The Amplified Bible's translation. the brackets mean that this word is not found in the original Greek but is supplied by the translators in order to better explain the context (in other words, it is a matter of interpretation).

Portion Translated: Old and New Testaments.

Vocabulary: Reasonable. I was expecting wordy, but that was not the case. There were times when the original Hebrew was toned down somewhat. In the Hebrew in Judges 19:2, this Levite’s mistress is said to commit adultery or to fornicate about the time she left her husband. In The Amplified Bible it reads that she was untrue.

Grade Level: Junior-Senior High school level.

Assumptions Made: The Bible was clearly put together by evangelicals who believe in the pre-eminence and deity of our Lord.

Bias: This will have a evangelical Christian bias, reflected in its notes and in the translation. One of the most important doctrines to orthodox believers is the doctrine of the virgin birth, which, in some modern translations, has been watered down. The virgin birth is alive and well in The Amplified Bible in Isa. 7:14 and Matt. 1:23. In fact, it is probably even more strongly stated in The Amplified Bible in Isa. 7:14 than it is in the KJV. There are some who hold to the KJV over all others, one of those reasons being its strong witness to the deity of Jesus Christ. There are several passages which testify to the deity of Christ which have been restated in several modern translation in such a way as to water down that doctrine. This is not the case in The Amplified Bible; some examples would be Matt. 1:23. One of the great Old Testament verses testifying to the trinity is lost in some modern translations. It is clearly stated, however, in The Amplified Bible: Come near to me and listen to this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it happened I was there. And now the Lord God has sent His Spirit in and with Me (Isa. 48:16). Another Old Testament which is often watered down in some newer translations, but not in The Amplified Bible is Zech. 12:10: And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace or unmerited favor, and supplication. And they shall look [earnestly] upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him as one who is in bitterness for his first-born.

Description of Translation: Tends to be wordy and concepts are repeated within the same verse for emphasis. There are times when a theological dissertation is given where one is not needed and without the benefit of brackets (Acts 16:31). For less important portions of Scripture (e.g., Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges), the translation tends to be concise, succinct and quite good.

The emphasis in this translation is a reasonable translation of the Greek and Hebrew and the interpretation, for the most part, is left up to the exegete.

Capitalization: Pronouns, even relative pronouns, referring to deity, are capitalized.

Order of Translation: Typical KJV order.

Strong Points: Words that are not there are placed into brackets, but this is not a consistent practice. See Additional Notes for other uses of brackets.

Sometimes their translation can be very helpful. There is a common mistake made with 1Sam. 7:2 where the time frame is confused with the amount of time that the Ark remains in Kiriath-jearim. In fact, some translations actually screw this up so badly, that the total length of time the Ark is in Kiriath-jearim appears to be 20 years (which would encompass the entire reign of Saul—40 years—and his selection process). This would make little sense. However, The Amplified Bible renders 1Sam. 7:2: And the Ark remained in Kiriath-jearim for a very long time [nearly 100 years, though Samuel's entire judgeship, Saul's reign, and well into David's, when it was brought to jer]. for it was twenty years before all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord. [1Chron. 13:5–7.] Their translation keeps the reader from becoming confused as to how long the Ark remained in Kiriath-jearim. The only problem is, I think the time period is probably between 60 and 80 years, and not 100.

Weak Points: Even when there is clear precedent for a passage, e.g., Joshua 15:59b being found in the Septuagint, but missing in the MT, The Amplified Bible will leave this out as well. There are times when gives us far more than is found in the original, without noting that this is amplification rather than a continuation of the translation (Acts 16:31 is a prime example). The NASB renders this verse as: And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” The Amplified Bible reads: And they answered, Believe in and on the Lord Jesus Christ—that is, give yourself up to Him, take yourself out of your own keeping and entrust yourself into His keeping, and you will be saved; [and this applies both to] you and your household as well. Whereas, this is supposed to be the essence of The Amplified Bible, it tends to be distracting and, in some ways, misleading. Now, the explanation is that parentheses and dashes would be used to signify additional phrase of meaning included in the original word, phrase or clause of the original language; still, it’s difficult to determine when something is a translation and when it is an expansion. Since there are parts of Scripture which require an em dash or a set of parentheses, the amplified portion of a translation would have been better served with the consistent use of brackets and/or braces.

Criticisms: A liberal theologian will feel out of place using this translation of Scripture. In some very succinct passages, where people are encouraged to believe on Christ, The Amplified Bible continually adds (trusts, clings to, relies on); perhaps concerned that easy believe-ism is just too easy (see, for instance, John 3:16, 18, 36). In other words, although The Amplified Bible supports many of the orthodox doctrines of Christianity, it tends to imply that salvation is not easy for us to apprehend.

ZPEB offers its own criticisms: ...“amplification” of course, opens the door to debatable interpretation. Often, the “amplification” is merely superfluous; nothing is really added by inserting “changed” in parentheses after “transformed” (Rom. 12:2). A version of this type should be used as a help, with a more conventional version, not as an authority by itself.

Their Comments:

Layout: Simply put, this is the worst layout of any of the translations. There are two columns with no differentiation between poetry and prose. Each verse is a new paragraph, whether it is a continuation of the previous verse or not. Notes and Scriptural references are often included in the verse in brackets (some notes are found below as well). The KJV (in most cases) and the NASB (in most cases) is laid out similarly, which is a big mistake in translating the Bible. Chapters and verses were added by man at a later date—they are not a part of inspired Scripture; therefore, pre-eminence should not be given to their divisions. If anything, the numbering of the verses should be minimized as much as possible.

Section Headings: None

Footnotes: There are actually very few footnotes in this version (it is not unusual to go a dozen pages without a footnote), and the ones which are found are often very good. What the translators did is put many of the notes in brackets in the verse itself. In these brackets, we will find limited Scriptural references (as few as one per chapter at times), clarifications (e.g., Judges 14:19, where Samson is identified as the person that the Spirit comes upon; or Judges 15:20), and translations of proper names (Judges 15:17, 19). Most of the footnotes are related to textual criticism.

Personal Comments: Although this translation does an awful lot of interpretation, it generally tends to be very accurate in its interpretation. At first, I thought that the translators took the KJV and worked from there; however, there are many places where apparently they worked from the original languages and developed a much better rendering of the language and meaning than is found in the KJV. It is at once, both reasonably literal and reasonably easy to read and apprehend.

Additional Features: None in mine.

Recommendations: Dr. Billy Graham is quoted on the inside cover: Get a modern Translation. The Amplified New Testament is easy to understand. It is the Bible written simply so common people can understand its meaning. The Amplified New Testament is the best study Testament on the market. It is a magnificent translation. I use it continually. Additional recommendations from pastors of Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist Presbyterian churches and organizations are quoted, as well as various scholars and a president of a Bible college. I sometimes take this version for granted, as I have had mine so long as a second Bible. It would certainly be an easier Bible than the KJV, for instance, to understand; yet one which would be just as accurate.

Additional Notes:

Preface:

Preface:

Preface:

Translation: The Contemporary English Version, which entitled The Promise.

Translators: Very little was said about who did the actual translation of this version of Scripture. We don’t know if we are talking about a handful of men, or an auditorium of scholars. See my comments below.

Date of Translation: This is copyrighted 1995 by Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Stated Purpose: In its preface, the CEV first quotes from the KJV’s preface: Translation it is that opens the window, to let in the light; that breaks the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that puts aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removes the cover of the well, that we may come by the water (“Translation to the Reader” King James Version, 1611). To the CEV goes on to say that, while many translations have attempted to imitate and emulate the language of the KJV, the CEV sought to capture the spirit of the King James Version by following certain principles set forth by its translators [in this original preface]. What they attempted to achieve was accuracy, beauty, clarity, and dignity of the Bible; after all, as the translators of the KJV stated, “This is the Word of God, which we translate.”

Manuscripts Used in the Old Testament: The CEV bases its translation upon the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the fourth edition correction. The CEV manages to incorporate both the Greek and the Hebrew version of Judges 19:18. It follows the Greek in 1Chron. 1:51a, rather than the Hebrew (which is the most logical choice). The CEV follows the Hebrew of Job 15:30b, rather than the Greek, although it is a little hard to tell (the translators of the CEV tend to be very creative in their translation). 1Sam. 13:15 is a passage which is very different in the Greek and the Hebrew; the error appears to be with the Hebrew; the CEV follows the Hebrew, although they footnote the alternate reading. In Job 15:11–12, it is apparent that the translators took a little from the Hebrew, a little from the Greek, and a great deal from their own imagination. I am all for have a fairly easy-to-read version of Scripture, but it makes me leery when the translators, rather than possibly present something which is difficult to understand, choose to lean upon their own imagination instead.

Like many of the more recent translations, the CEV also made extensive use of the Dead Sea Scrolls, taking their rendering over the later manuscripts. Deference was given to the Dead Sea Scrolls in passages e.g. 1Sam. 1:23–25.

Notes on the Old Testament Translation: As mentioned above, there are times when a passage is not easily understood, and the translators appear to have reworded the passage pretty much from their imagination. Job 15:11–12 in the CEV reads: And you have been offered comforting words from God. Isn’t this enough? Your emotions are out of control, making you look fierce;... Compare and contrast this with Massoretic text and the Septuagint:

This imaginative rendering of the text is sometimes beyond one’s imagination; for instance, Job 16:19–22 simply bears a resemblance to the original text:

God’s Word™, also a modern English translation, still matches the original text more often: “Even now, look! My witness is in heaven, and the one who testifies for me is above, the spokesman for my thoughts. My eyes drip [with tears] to God because in a few short years I will take the path of no return. But my witness will plead for a human in front of God. The Son of Man will plead for his friend!” [It is in poetic form in the God’s Word™; you will note that v. 22 is placed before v. 21].

This imaginative approach is found throughout this translation. There are innumerable times when the CEV gives us this oversimplified rendering when such a rendering is unnecessary.

Now and again, the CEV is just too simplistic, to the point of being irritating, even though it is not far from the original languages; some examples follow:

Manuscripts Used in the New Testament: The CEV translators used the Greek text which is published by the United Bible Societies (third edition corrected and compared with the fourth revised edition).

Notes on the New Testament Translation: In I Cor. 12–14, glôssa (γλσσα) [pronounced GLOHS-sah], is rendered languages rather than tongues. This is a reasonable and accurate translation; however, when referring to a portion of the human body, they render this word tongue.

Portion Translated: The Old and New Testaments.

Vocabulary: High school Freshman level.

Grade Level: Seems to be on a high school freshman level or even intermediate school level. This is not meant as an insult, as there is nothing wrong with having a relatively simple translation.

Assumptions Made: By their preface, it appears to be the assumption of the translators that we are dealing with the Word of God.

Bias: Because of our leanings in this society of a more gender-less society, the CEV took portions of Scripture which was gender-specific and made it gender-less. Their illustration: The Greek text of Matthew 16:24 is literally, “If anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” The Contemporary English Version shifts to a form which is still accurate, and at the same time more effective in English. “If any of you wants to be my followers, you must forget about yourself. You must take up your cross and follow me.”  Their term for this is gender generic. This will obviously be a sore-spot for some believers.

Probably the primary concerns of this Bible translation is how does it read and how does it sound when read? This is alluded to again and again in its preface. I know that some churches have a reading from Scripture as a part of their service. The CEV might serve well in that regard. What at first appears to be a secondary consideration was the formatting of the text—in doing so, their thought was to make the text visually easy to read aloud.

In general, unlike many of the modern translations, the CEV is very conservative in its theology. When giving a prediction of our Lord, the CEV reads: But the Lord will still give you proof. A virgin is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel. Many of the modern translations render virgin as young woman instead (which is really not so much of a sign). Their attendant notes to that verse tell us that Immanuel means God With Us. I wish they would have retained that for the New Testament, where the fulfillment of that verse is Matt. 1:23, which reads, in the CEV: “A virgin will have a baby boy, and he will be call Immanuel,” which means “God is with us.” I believe that God with us is the stronger, more conservative rendering of Immanuel.

Also, let me quote from the preface: The translators of the Contemporary English Version have not created new or novel interpretations of the text. Rather, it was their goal to express mainstream interpretations of the text in current, every-day English. To do so required listening carefully to each word of the biblical text, to the way in which English is spoken today, to the remarks of their reviewers, and especially to the Spirit of God.

I guess my point is, if you are of a conservative theological bend (which I am), you may not like individual verses and their too-free rendering, but you should have no trouble with the overall theology found in the CEV.

Description of Translation: This is strictly an interpretation and not a translation. Of all of the various translations which I examined, this one was the least literal. Sometimes, two and three verses are rendered as one, so that, not only do we not have the Hebrew rendered word-for-word, but there are times when we do not have even a verse-for-verse rendering (this is quite rare for a translation; the CEV is the only translation that I am aware of which does this). Verses are transposed, mixed together, and sometimes thoughts and portions of the text are left out entirely. There are times when the inference of the Hebrew is cannily made, and other times when meaning is inserted. Once and awhile, it softens the original Hebrew. In Judges 19:2, the Hebrew tells us that this Levite’s wife committed adultery or fornicated (with someone else) and then left him. The CEV reads that she was unfaithful. The more important consideration—that is, is this adultery really a part of God’s Word, is not mentioned in the CEV.

Let me give an example of meaning which was made absolutely clear in Ruth 3:17:

KJV     And she said, These six measures of barley gave he to me; for he said to me, Go not empty unto thy mother-in-law.

CEV    She also said, “Boaz gave me this grain, because he didn’t want me to come back without something for you.”

Notice that what Ruth actually said was altered considerably, albeit the meaning is perspicuous. However, take note here that the KJV is not abstruse either.

Here are more Old Testament examples where the CEV acts more as a commentary than as a translation:

Now and again, we have an instance where another modern translation has done a much better job with translating a passage.

The Greek, although an easier language to render into the English, is sometimes perverted by the CEV. That is, meaning which was not intended is inserted. I Cor. 14:15 is, literally: What then is it? I will pray with [or, by means of] the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind. I will sing with the spirit, but I will also sing with the mind. The CEV, which differs from pretty much the other 25+ translations here, is rendered: Then what should I do? There are times when I should pray with my spirit, and times when I should pray with my mind. Sometimes I should sing with my spirit, and at other times I should sing with my mind. This, unfortunately obscures the argument of Paul, who, in this passage, maintains that one should be praying in the spirit and with understanding at the same time, rather than at different times, which is what the CEV says.

One common trait of many of the more recent translation is the combining of verses. That is, rather than render v. 26 and then render v. 27, the CEV often will render the two together as one verse, intermingling the verses in order to get an easier to read passage; some examples follow:

One interesting note for me: I expected that the translation of the CEV to lean toward the charismatic interpretation. Whereas some modern translations (e.g., the NRSV, the REB, the NAB and the NJB) have Saul falling into some ecstatic trance in 1Sam. 10:10, he simply begins prophesying in the CEV (which is how it reads in the Hebrew). In the famous I Cor. 14 passage, Paul discourages the believers from bursting out with speaking in languages that they have not learned (i.e., the gift of tongues). There is no indication in this passage in the CEV that the congregation is speaking in total gibberish (i.e., the tongues of angels); it references, as does the Greek, the speaking of a known language that the speaker himself has not learned.

Capitalization: The pronouns associated with deity are not capitalized; there are some instances where a Messianic prediction is not appropriately capitalized (e.g., Isa. 7:14).

Order of Translation: The CEV follows the standard KJV order.

Strong Points: Although this is translated at a rather low academic level, this is a very readable and easy-to-understand translation.

If you are a fundamentalist Christian, as I am, you will find very little in this translation which will contradict what you believe. However, you should never quote from the CEV in order to prove a point, because what someone else has in their translation could be very different.

There are passages which are reasonably and clearly rendered which do not stray too far from the original. For example:

Weak Points: I would not use quotations from this translation of the Bible to support or disparage a controversial Biblical doctrine. There are specific instances (I Cor. 14:15 was already cited) where CEV’s translation is in flat-out opposition to the original Greek.

One of the Old Testament passages, which clearly teaches the trinity, is obscured slightly by the CEV. Young’s Literal Translation reads: Come ye near unto me, hear this, Not from the beginning in secret spake I, From the time of its being, there am I, And now the Lord Jehovah hath sent me and His Spirit (Isa. 48:16). The CEV reads: Come closer and listen! I have never kept secret the things I have said, and I was here before time began. By the power of his Spirit the Lord God has sent me... It’s there, but you have to look more closely to see it (and, the way it is tied to the next verse obscures it just a bit more).

There are times when the CEV can be inaccurate very misleading. One example is 1Sam. 7:1–2: The people of Kiriath-Jearim got the chest and took it to Abinadab's house, which was on a hill in their town. They chose his son Eleazar to take care of it, and it stayed there for twenty years. During this time everyone in Israel was very sad and begged the LORD for help. The Ark did not remain in Kiriath-jearim for only 20 years. The would have compressed approximately 60 years of history (and 30 chapters of Scripture) into 20 years.

The names of God are sometimes obscured by the CEV. For instance, the Lord of Hosts or the Lord of the Armies is not found in the CEV, although it occurs 235 times in the Old Testament, it does not occur in the CEV; we find, instead, the Lord All-Powerful. Now, that is a nice title, but it is not the title found in the Hebrew.

Criticisms: There were many instances, particularly in the poetry sections of Scripture, where the translators leaned more toward their own imagination than they did toward anything else. There are even a few instances where the similarity between the CEV translation and the original text appeared to be only coincidental. Let me offer some examples:

One problem with many of the oversimplified versions of Scripture is that they sound lame, particularly when conveying a message directly from God. Some examples follow:

The biggest problem with the CEV is that there are places where the translation is just flat out false or misleading. Some examples follow:

Let me point out, in this criticism, that if your do not understand your translation of a particular passage, there are times when the CEV will explain that passage and explain it accurately (and, of course, there are times when its interpretation is inaccurate as well). Again, this should not be your first Bible or your main Bible, and this is not a translation to depend upon for difficult theological interpretations, concepts and discussions.

Their Comments: The Contemporary English Version has been described as an “user-friendly” and a “mission-driven” translation that can be read aloud without stumbling, heard without misunderstanding, and listened to with enjoyment and appreciation, because the language is contemporary and the style is lucid and lyrical. Their earliest drafts were sent to a variety of Biblical scholars and theologians from several different denominations for their comments, as well as to all the English-speaking Bible Societies, as well as to over forty United Bible Societies translation consultants throughout the world. Several times in their preface, they emphasize the importance of this translation being one which one would listen to being read aloud, and how attuned their translators were to this translation from an auditory standpoint. In other words, they were looking for this version to be easy to read aloud and easy to listen to when read from.

And: Each translation is, in its own right, the Word of God, yet each translation serves to meet the needs of a different audience. In this regard, the Contemporary English Version should be considered a companion—the mission arm—of traditional translations, because it takes seriously the words of the apostle Paul that “faith comes by hearing.” 

Layout: This is the only translation that I am aware of which uses, to its advantage, watermarks to denote what book we are in. Like many modern translations, poetry looks like poetry, prose looks like prose. The CEV employed the two-column format with notes at the bottom of each page. It is the most pleasantly formatted of all the translations.

They do sort of an odd thing with quotes. If there is a moderately long quote, then often quotation marks are not used, but the quote is indented. Now this is not a bad idea, as we often find quotes within quotes within quotes in Scripture. However, this will be mixed in with the use of quotation marks for those who are conversing or answering, but whose remarks are but one verse. Narrative is not indented. However, we run into problems of consistency now and again. In 1Sam. 12, for instance, Samuel is giving a speech to the Israelites. No part of his speech has quotation marks and it is all indented. The people occasionally are called upon to respond. Their response is also indented, but with appropriate quotation marks. However, in vv. 18–19, we have a short amount of narrative, followed by speaking. None of that is indented. My point is, it is difficult to be consistent with this approach—however it is not a bad idea for extended quotes, particular for those passages where we have quote within a quote within a quote (which are surprisingly frequent in Scripture). It is not that disconcerting, as I had owned and used my own copy of CEV for a couple of years before I even noticed this minor inconsistency.

Now, despite all of this fancy layout and the options available to the translators, they fall short in many areas. The psalms have titles and they also have parenthetical information which is properly formatted (like so many translations do, including the KJV). However, there are areas where such formatting should be applied, and is not. In the first nine chapters of 1Chronicles, we have a list of various genealogies. Each of these is properly titled in the original and at least one of them (Reuben’s) has a parenthetical statement as we find in the psalms. However, the CEV translators do not appear to be aware of this and they must add a great deal of additional verbiage to make the first couple words of 1Chron. 5:1 blend in with that which follows. Furthermore, that which is parenthetical and would have been better served in italics or smaller print right below the title, is not properly reformatted in any such way. If we are going to go with modern text formatting, then we should allow for Scripture to lead us to do it correctly and consistently.

Section Headings: The section headings in The Promise are in large, bold, italicized print, so the it stands out from the text. All of the Bible translations, this is probably the most appealing to the eye and the easiest to read.

Footnotes: The footnotes each note the verse or verses from which they are taken in boldface, so it is easy to go from the text to the footnote and from the footnote to the text.

Like several versions of Scripture, at the bottom of each page we find footnotes which are designed to give us some background and/or understanding of the passage referred to. Whereas I frequently quote or expand upon Scofield’s notes, and make occasional use of the notes of the NIV Study Bible in my exegetical studies, I rarely refer to or use the CEV’s footnotes. I judged them to be of only moderate help.

Personal Comments: Most of these various translations submit their work to various scholars throughout the world. How much attention these scholars give to their early efforts is unknown. How much weight their comments bear on the final draft is also unknown. Having been on several textbook committees, the time that some people devote to such a task, even when it impacts them directly, is sometimes quite brief; and those who do spend their time in careful review of the material are occasionally ignored. This is not a personal attack upon the translators of the CEV—as almost all translations go through this process—I just want you to recognize that it often sounds better on paper than one finds in real life practice. The responsibility for the strength of a translation falls more upon the shoulders of its translators than it does upon those who review said translation.

A second item of note is the appearance of this translation. At first, I thought that they simply made use of some of the nifty tricks of word processing (e.g., watermarks). However, on closer examination, the text was intentionally printed in such a way as to make it easier to read aloud. The example given was poetic text which is uncomfortably broken up primarily because of the often-used two column layout found in most translations. The CEV is a one-column work, where quotations, poetry and prose are all set apart in a pleasant and easily read-from format. In fact, of the Bibles which I have examined, the CEV translators probably pay more attention to format than any other set of translators (oddly enough, the only other translation wherein format plays such a big part is Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, which is one of the most literal translations).

The CEV makes a point here which I rarely hear: the power of the spoken Word of God. God has designated for His word to be spoken. There are certain of us who receive a great deal of our growth through the written word; however, the majority of people began learning God’s Word and growing spiritually through hearing His Word. Even though the majority of my learning comes through the written word today, I spent the first twenty years of my spiritual life having the Word of God taught to me verbally.

There are several key verses which are watered-down in various new translations of Scripture, e.g., Gen. 11:1 Job 14:14 Isa. 7:14 Micah 5:5 Matt. 16:18 John 1:42. The CEV retains the reasonable theological significance that we generally associate with these verses. Often, the power and punch of the KJV is missing, but that tends to be true of almost any translation, including the NKJV. What the KJV seemed to achieve more so than any other translation that I am aware of is a wondrous marriage between literature and translation.

Finally, as I have harped on throughout this review, the CEV leans too much towards the imagination of the translators than it does upon the original text. God’s Word™, also a modern translation, tends to match the original Hebrew more often, both in meaning and with respect to specific words. Whereas I do not find too many things to get into a theological huff about with the CEV, since the translators appear to be fundamental and historic in their theology, my main problem is that they stray too far and too often from what the original text is, and often without a valid reason for doing so.

I should also point out that, given their correct theological bias, their translation is sometimes very readable and very reasonable; some examples below:

On the other hand, this English version is filled with passages that lack a compelling translation. Whereas, the KJV is a work of literature, with is compelling and stirring, you come across passages in the CEV which are, quite frankly, lame or weak. Some examples below:

Additional Features: After the preface, there is a list of Bible promises, which is apropos, given the name of this translation. The notes on the various verses add commentary which deal more with the translation (which I find helpful) rather than with the interpretation of Scripture. My thinking here is that their attempt was to make explaining the meaning of any given verse unnecessary. At the end of this translation, we have a reasonable dictionary of Biblical terms and names as well as an excellent chronology table.

At the beginning of each book, rather than an outline they have A Quick Look At This Book followed by a bulleted list which amounts to a simple outline (or, better, a listing of headings). Given that this book is written at a lower level, I would imagine that some readers would look at an outline and gloss over. They didn’t like them in school and certainly don’t like them in their Bible. Furthermore, there are many schools which no longer even teach how to outline (in case you were not aware, essay organization is taught by graphical organizers instead). A bulleted list would be found by such a one to have greater appeal and therefore it would be more likely read. I believe that this is an excellent approach. After all, a feature which is not used is worthless.

Recommendation: I personally found this to be a very readable translation, and a handy backup when stumped by the meaning of this verse or that. However, I would not ever turn to this translation solely to determine the meaning of a particular passage. This would never be my primary Bible; but, then again, I am more academically inclined than the average person. For a young person, for a gift, as an introduction to Scripture, this might be the ideal choice. If you read portions of Scripture to your children at night, this would be one of the better choices (along with the NLT or the TEV). If you want just one modern English Bible, this could be it, although I would choose the NLT instead.

There is an additional consideration—I have found this Bible for sale at extremely inexpensive prices for the paperback version, which, thus far, has seemed to be relatively sturdy (I have had binding separate on much more expensive hardcover editions of other books, whereas I have not experienced any binding problems with my particular paperback CEV). If you are looking for an inexpensive additional version (theological scholars tend to lack large expense budgets), or if you need to purchase a quantity of modern English Bibles, for whatever reason, and your funds are limited, then this might be your best choice, all things considered.

Additional Notes: The appearance of the book is the match the kind of writing which was done. That is, poetry looks like poetry, and prose like prose. There are watermarks and other fancy word processing things which were done to make this visually appealing.

The translators add a general word of gratitude at the end of their preface to all of the Biblical scholars which have gone before. The body of Christ is one and we do not live or die to ourselves. Few believers realize how much they owe to generations which have gone before us. I personally appreciated seeing such a heart-felt acknowledgment in print.

Preface:

Translation: The Complete Jewish Bible

Translator: David H. Stern

Date of Translation: Completed and published the Jewish New Testament in 1989. The entire Bible was finished and published by 1998.

Stated Purpose: The first and foremost purpose of this translator was to restore the unified Jewishness of the Bible, and, particularly, to show that the books of the New Covenant are Jewish through and through. What is lacking in all of the modern English translations of Scripture is one which is fundamentally Jewish. The author, a Jew converted over to Christianity, originally began putting together a Jewish New Testament Commentary; however, he spent so much time focusing on what he did not like about other English translations in his commentary, that he finally translated the New Testament from the Greek into an informal yet respectful translation. One stated purpose was the fact that the New Testament was a Jewish document which was never really treated as such. Therefore, he was motivated to put together a translation which was Jewish in its nature. He first completed the Jewish New Testament, and then spent another three years working on his commentary. He was pressed by many to also translate the Old Testament. At this time, he had become older, and did not have the same driving motivation to show that the Old Testament was essentially a Jewish document, and therefore really did not want to translate the entire Old Testament. He tried several approaches at first—finding an Old Testament with a Jewish slant to combine with his (English translations defer at times to the Septuagint, which defeated Stern’s purposes). This didn’t work out. He found one (the old Jewish Publication Society version) which had gone into public domain, and initially had planned on changed the thou’s to you’s, etc., but it just wasn’t that simple. He finally ended up paraphrasing this version, occasionally translating certain versions directly from the Hebrew of the Massoretic text into English. Stern also made use of several English versions of the Old Testament to help him find the right wording. In short, the Old Testament is a compromise between a translation and a paraphrase, whereas the New Testament is translated directly and in its entirety from the Greek manuscripts.

Secondarily, Stern wanted a translation which was easy, if not enjoyable, to read, flowing easily from the page into the mind and heart, unimpeded as much as possible by the differences between the environment of the Bible and that of the present.

Manuscripts Used in the Old Testament: Stern depended first and foremost upon a 1917 English translation of the Old Testament known as the Jewish Publication Society version (JPS), and secondly upon the Massoretic text. According to his preface, he did not use the Greek Septuagint, which is generally the case (e.g., Job 15:30). The Complete Jewish Bible leaves it in, but separates v. 51, as is should. V. 51b begins a new paragraph. 1Sam. 13:15 is a passage which is very different in the Greek and the Hebrew; the error appears to be with the Hebrew; the Complete Jewish Bible follows the Hebrew (as we would expect).

Notes on the Old Testament Translation:

Manuscripts Used in the New Testament: Stern translated from the Greek manuscripts.

Notes on the New Testament Translation: glôssa (γλσσα) [pronounced GLOHS-sah], is simply rendered tongue(s) throughout the New Testament.

Portion Translated: Old and New Testaments.

Vocabulary: At times, this is a very homey, informal, easy to understand version of Scripture. However, those who are not familiar with Jewish names will be put off by it. For instance, Yochanan (John) 2:13–14 reads: It was almost time for the festival of Pesach in Y׳huddah, so Yeshua went up to Yerushalayim. In the Temple grounds he found those who were selling cattle, sheep and pigeons, and others who were sitting at tables exchanging money. Those brought up in a Jewish home who have come to recognize Yeshua as their Savior, will greatly appreciate this translation.

Grade Level: Apart from the Jewish transliterations, this is appropriate for a high school Freshman or Sophomore.

Assumptions Made:

Bias: Obviously, by the name, The Complete Jewish Bible, and its inclusion of the New Testament—this would indicate that this is going to be a Bible with a Christian slant and undertones of Jewishness (but not of Judaism).

Description of Translation:

Capitalization:

Order of Translation: The Old Testament is the more traditional Jewish ordering of the books, with the books of Moses being first (the Torah), the prophets (the Neviim) (which are split into two sections: the early and the later prophets, and the writings (the Kethuvim) (which itself can be broken down into three sections: the Psalms, Proverbs and Job; the Five Scrolls—the Song of Solomon, and the books of Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and the final writings of the Old Testament—Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles). The New Testament is as you would find it anywhere else.

Strong Points: I like the idea of doing Old Testament passages which are quoted in the New Testament in boldface. They stand out and sometimes call one’s attention to the foundation of the New Testament (there is hardly a single page where there is not at least one Old Testament quotation in the New Testament). Also, in most Bible’s, the proper names tend to be “Greek-a-sized.” In the Jewish Bible, they remain Jewish-sounding. A person who has been brought up in a Jewish home will have a strong appreciation for the traditional use of the proper nouns transliterated from the Hebrew rather than from the Greek.

Now, below I will list a few passages which could have been rendered more accurately. However, there are problem passages which the Complete Jewish Bible gets right (i.e., there are passages where there is the liberal rendering of the passage, given by several, but not all, of the newer modern English translations; and there is the more conservative approach, which not only reflects the correct theological stance, but a more accurate translation of the passage as well). The Complete Jewish Bible was fine in its translation of Job 19:25–26 Psalm 45:6 118:26 Isa. 9:6 48:16 53:9 Zech. 12:10 Mal. 3:1.

Now and again, a passage is more or less rendered correctly. What happens in many translations, particularly the more modern ones, is that passages are dumbed-down in order to reach the hoi polloi. If the meaning is complex, then it is made simple. For instance, Psalm 19:13 deals with David praying for God to deliver him from the commission of acts of arrogance so that he may be acquitted of great transgression. The Complete Jewish Bible renders this: Also keep your servant from presumptuous sins, so that they won’t control me. Then I will be blameless and free of great offense. Although not an inspired translation here, it rendered this verse generally better than most (for instance, than the NLT, TEV and God’s Word™).

Weak Points: In his paraphrasing, Mr. Stern occasionally misses a point or two. In I Cor. 13:1–3, there is a build-up in each verse. Paul plays a trump card or ups the ante in each verse, which Stern catches in vv. 1 and 3, but misses in v. 2. Those without a Jewish background may be put off by the change from Greek transliterated names to Hebrew transliterated names.

Stern did not given a great deal of time to the translation of the Old Testament, and, at times, it shows. For instance, 1Chron. 6:31 clearly breaks from the previous passage and should be tied to the names which follow. The Complete Jewish Bible makes the mistake of attaching this verse (and some which follow) to the previous list of names (of all the translations which I have examined, I believe that this is the only translation which makes this particular mistake).

Criticisms: As I began to look up key passages, I was less than happy. For instance:

There are additional passages that they could have done better with; e.g., Psalm 23:4 Micah 5:2

Layout: Poetry looks like poetry; prose like prose. Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are done in boldface, with the appropriate Scriptural reference.

Section Headings: None.

Footnotes: There are very few footnotes in the Complete Jewish Bible. Most of them in the New Testament simply refer back to whatever Old Testament passage has been quoted. I don’t recall seeing any footnotes in the Old Testament (again, recall that the author tells us that the work he did was really on the New Testament).

Personal Comments: I must admit that I was all set to really like this translation. However, I was disappointed because of its occasional liberal leanings. Portions of this Bible were done well and portions were not. I personally do most of my exegetical work in the Old Testament (at least, as of this writing), and Stern really did not set out to do his best work in the Old Testament (he does admit to this). His intention was to give more of a Jewish flavor to the New Testament, something which is generally lacking in most modern translations. I have not spent enough time in the New Testament to comment in greater detail.

However, if you want an Old Testament with a Jewish slant, try the JPS Tanakh, also called The Jewish Bible. This was a translation done specifically for Jews by Jews. Although it does not have a lot of the flavor of Stern’s New Testament translation, it is still an outstanding translation on the whole (there are some isolated passages in the JPS which were rendered as per Jewish theological dictates). Surprisingly enough, a Christian believer will find the Jewish Bible more to his liking than the Complete Jewish Bible, despite the fact that the latter was produced by Christians.

Additional Features: This probably has the longest, yet the most interesting, of the prefaces of all the various translations (43 pages!). Throughout the translation itself, there are very few notes or references to other portions of Scripture. There appears to be an average of perhaps one note per page.

There is a glossary in back which helps the gentile identify any Jewish names that he does not recognize. There is a reverse glossary if there is a name that you are curious as to the Hebrew rendering of same.

There is a list of Old Testament passages which are quoted in the Old and in the New listed in the back.

There is also a listing of the festivals and where they are found mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments as well as some black and white maps at the end of this Bible.

It appears that the intended reader for this book is the Jew who has some sort of Judaic background (more than simply being born of Jewish extraction), but has converted to Christianity (although this translation would as easily work for a Jew who has become a Catholic as a Jew who has become a Baptist).

Recommendations: Insofar as the Old Testament goes, this is more of a curiosity than a translation which is necessary for you to locate and purchase.

Additional Notes: