A common question that a pastor is asked is, “What translation of the Bible should I use?”
It’s a good question, because there’s no right or wrong answer to it. In fact, the best thing that you can do is to compare translations (a method that all pastors/seminarians are all too familiar with!). You can learn so much from the different versions, and the English language is so blessed to have so many translations at it’s hand. The most common translation that you’ll find in evangelical churches is the NIV translation. It is written with a reading level of between a 7th and 8th grader. It’s the one that we usually use at our church because it’s easy to understand. But, because of it’s readability, it does sacrifice accuracy. The translation that is known among Bible scholars to be the most accurate is the NASB (New American Standard Bible). Consistently, in seminary, when we had to translate verses from the original language, I used to compare my translation to NASB. So, then why don’t most churches use the more accurate translation? Cause it’s uncomfortably accurate. It doesn’t break any grammar rules, but it’s ackward and not written in a way people would speak. The NIV translation was a pretty good middle ground between readibility and accuracy. But everyone who has this tension between NIV and NASB always felt like there should be a translation between NIV and NASB.
Enter ESV (English Standard Version). A fresh and new translation that is only a year or two old and it EXACTLY what I’ve been looking for. It’s the new up and coming translation and many pastors and scholars are recommending it (including people like John Piper and Max Lucado). I think it’s only a matter of time when this translation will gain ground and take the church by a storm.
I have been reading it daily starting this year with the Bible Reading Program and I thoroughly enjoy it. I have been comparing it with NIV constantly to see what each translation says on particular passages and have been impressed with ESV’s renderings. I liked the translation so much that I bought my most expensive Bible a couple of weeks ago. It’s a calf-skin (smooth as silk) leather cover. I smell the leather everytime I crack it.
Obviously, there are many ESV Bibles that are much cheaper that you can buy. There not all that expensive. But, I would strongly recommend this translation. If you can get beyond, “I’m so used to NIV” or “I memorized everything from AWANA in NKJV,” and can give it a chance, go for it. It’s fresh, it’s accurate, it’s readable.
You can also see a side by side comparision of NIV and ESV of John 1.
you read my mind!!! That’s my question.
But I’m interested in what you think of the Message version compared to ESV. Thanks, PK!
Hey Christine,
The Message, technically, is not a translation. Don’t get me wrong, personally, I love it! And it is definitely more accurate than a paraphrase version (i.e. Living Bible) as Eugene Peterson (author) examined the original languages and modernized the translation, but it was written not as a word for word translation, but thought for thought translation. That’s why, the first versions of the Message Bible didn’t have verse numbers (only chapter numbers), cause you can’t really compare verse by verse, as he would take the thought of a verse and expand/shorten.
Anyway, I would STRONGLY recommend reading the Message Bible for comparision, but would NOT use it as a main Bible.
If I had an ESV, NIV and Message Bible, I would be happy.
Hope that helps.
ohhhhhhhh gotcha. that helps! thank you.
what about nrsv? how does it compare with nasb? i think i will check out esv, though. thanks for the post!
Good question! RSV is actually a very good translation (imho) but the reason why most people didn’t use it is because even though it’s an accurate translation that’s readable, it still used the old language (i.e. thou, thee, etc.). So, people didn’t like it because of that.
But, when they came to revise the RSV (NRSV), they did more than just change the old language, which (imho) they shouldn’t have. The biggest controversy with the NRSV has been the gender inclusive language (i.e. brothers = brothers and sisters), which is not bad in and of itself, but they took too much liberty in their interpretation.
It’s funny you mention NRSV because many people say that ESV is what NRSV should have been, as they have made some gender language but left things when it’s ambiguous. ESV, even though it’s new, has gained much respect from scholars and pastors.
yeah, give it a shot … it grows on ya!