Posted on by Dave Miers

Which English Bible?

There are still approx 3500 languages in the world that don’t yet have the Bible in their own language.  English speakers really are spoilt for choice with the number of Bible translations we have available. In my circles, the 1984 New International Version has reigned for a long time. It has now been discontinued with the release of the updated 2011 edition.

This means in the near future we’ll need to decide whether to upgrade to the NIV 2011, or consider a different English translation. I’m going to be doing some research and thinking through the options. At the moment I’ll be checking out the NIV 2011, HCSB and ESV.

Let me know what you think are the key considerations and any useful resources. Thanks!

48 Replies to “Which English Bible?”

  1. good luck with your search. I’ve found that a lot of people stand very dedicated to the KJV claiming it to be the most accurate word for word translation from original texts. Personally, I’m in the NIV crowd, and as far as I can see it’s all God’s word so it’s all good. I’m interested to see the results of your search. Keep us posted.

    1. thanks sonia.
      those kjv peeps are crazy!!
      we have bibles that are closer to the original now than then… not to mention the english in kjv is foreign to most modern readers!!

      will defs keep posted.

  2. The new NIV looks good, however I don’t get why in Genesis 1, the word ‘expanse’ has been replaced with ‘vault’. Seriously? I think of casinos and Ocean’s Eleven when I hear the word vault.

    I’ve been reading the HCSB for about a year and enjoying it. Not sure that I’d jump straight to using it in a church setting yet.

    ESV feels like Yoda wrote it. e.g., Philippians 1: “always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy” … say wha?

  4. I’ve used the ESV since it came out around 10 years ago.

    I was at UNSW at the time it came out, and Phillip Jensen and the rest of the CBS/Matthias crew made a huge deal of promoting it at the time, indicating how it was much closer to the original text than the NIV.

    I have always found it very easy to read, and whenever the minister says something like “but the original text is actually closer to …..” in their sermon, more often than not, the ESV already reads that way.

    1. i enjoy the esv. i think some of the rhetoric about esv when it came out was a bit much. i think moore college helped to neutralise it a bit.

  5. in the pews we have NRSV (left from previous minister) i use anything and every translation but i still mostly use the NIV. I still find it the easiest to read, although if i was a true Christian i would be using the KING JAMES BIBLE. but i am soft so i dont :)

  6. We’re using 1984, and have just bought heaps more copies before they go out of print. Most people know it well, and it doesn’t make sense to change, just because Zondervan decides to not print any more copies. How did we allow a company to own the rights to the Bible?

  7. thanks steve.

    feels a bit stupid!

    but i guess we don’t complaing about not being about to get 1995 NASB or the 1978 NIV
    i guess niv are saying this is what the niv now looks like. so buy it or don’t. yeah?

    the problem with buying a crate of 84 niv is that new christians will only be able to buy 2011 in shops or christians when they need a new one.

  8. I have no great insights, but here are my thoughts. I find ESV good, but for younger groups, a little too difficult sometimes (i remember being confused by the turn of phrase in my high school bible studies. St Matts West Penno is using the NIV atm.
    My personal bible at the moment is a 2011 NIV: I think it’s a really good option, and is very open about any ambiguities etc…but I do also think there’s some value in the Holman being a little more word accurate than the NIV 2011. So Holman’s probably a good middle ground in my opinion.

  9. Now Dave, I am not up on the philosophy of why you guys use the translations you use, but surely the point of any translation is to get as close to the original as possible (a difficult proposition, I know). Now even with my Greek I can see the KJV is a fair distance from accurate in more than a few places (in terms of accurately rendering the Greek). Surely something like the Robert Young Literal translation would be the way to go here? Not cool, I know, but maybe a little truer to the original scripts that were available? So many translations (not just bible translations) carry so much extra baggage that maybe wasn’t there in the original.

    Also while we’re on the topic, can you recommend a bible language commentary for both Greek and Hebrew?

    Hey, if you’re ever back in Newtown, new coffee shop near Moore called Lite Bites. Good spot. ;)

    1. hey rob – thanks for your input.

      i think it’s important for bible teachers to be able to get as close to the original as possible, hence learning greek and hebrew in Bible colleges.

      as you’d know, learning the original languages isn’t possible for all people. and so one of the aims of bible translation is to render the original into languages that people know and understand.

      clunky literal word-for-word translation from original languages into english won’t necessarily pick up the meaning of the text. sometimes a less literal translation might pick up the nuance of the original better than a more literal one.

      Also while we’re on the topic, can you recommend a bible language commentary for both Greek and Hebrew?

      HEY DOUG – DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS???

      I don’t make it into newtown very much, but i saw them fitting lite bites out at the end of last year. i’ll keep an eye out for you when i’m in town!

      1. depends how hard core you want to go!
        WBC is pretty good on language – they do their own translation – but vary in theology.
        hermeneia also quite good and mentions variants a lot. but does lots of rhetorical criticism which doesn’t mean much to most people (myself included)
        NIGTC (eg Thistleton on 1 Cor) is very hard core on greek.
        Pillar is good for NT (some written by MTC peeps), and Apollos for OT.
        BST and NIBC both show awareness of the original languages but you only notice it if you’re looking for it (BST eg Webb on Isa & Zech; NIBC eg Hillyer on 1,2 Pet, Jude).

        but, like bible translations, best not to be dogmatic, try out different ones, see what works best for which book.
        hope that helps.

      2. hey rob – are you after commentary series?
        that’s what doug has suggested.
        or are you after an all-in-one type of thing?

  10. I went on a similar journey a couple of years ago, though just for myself not a church! I came away a keen advocate for the ESV, since then a gospel-centred pastor has turned up with the same inclinations and so most people are picking up esv’s just so they can follow along on Sundays. On the downside I have found the esv grammatically clunky at times, and sometimes difficult for youth to read, also most people seem to know memory verses in the 1984 so reading psalms can leave a bad taste in your mouth!
    On the plus side i find the esv clear, literal and… for some reason the publishers (eg Crossway, Zondervan, Thomas Nelson, HCSB) tend align themselves with theological tendencies? And as Crossway is heavily linked with The Gospel Coaltion and associates that makes it awesome for me:)
    However you have caused me to go back and look at the HCSB and I love how the use ‘Yahweh’ & capitalise the names of God! (it also seems more readable? + their website is swanky! I’ll definitely be putting it alongside the ESV, NIV & NKJV for bible studies etc. Cheers ;)

    1. hey gordo – thanks for weighing in.
      i personally like using different english translations too.
      perhaps in a digital age, website useability is a consideration!! haha!

      ps – i got your sms – will get back to you soon!

  11. I’m an advocate for enjoying the blessings of having multiple translations available.

    ESV, NASB are great for study and digging into the text.

    I find the 84NIV pretty good to read, though it’s getting too familiar to me.

    HCSB seems to lean slightly more towards the ESV in terms of which way it goes when the original words are ambiguous. 1 Sam 13-15 has some ambiguities, the HCSB goes the same way in translating them as the ESV.

    yay for variety.

  13. I think one of the serious considerations is readability for new Christians or non-Christians, having just spent a friday night at youth trying to explain why the KJV my yr 7 girls got given by the Gideons is so hard to read.
    Its all well and good to be accurate to the original, but they were reading it in Hebrew, or Greek, no? Isn’t the point of translating it so we can read and understand in our own language?

    1. i think you’re spot on.
      we want the word of God to be accessible to all people.
      the youth ministry question is key for me.

  14. We use the TNIV (for about 5 years now) and so we’ll go straight to NIV2011 now they’ve stopped printing the TNIV.
    We’re happy with it at Petersham. Made some good changes with translation of “of” rather than interpreting it as either “for” or “from” which lets you make up your own mind which way it goes. PLus the gender inclusiveness is useful for an area where kids thing “mankind” is a sexist expression. Oh, and I like how they’re gradually moving away from interpreting texts with an old english conservatism and actually translating the graphic flavour of some passages (like King Eglon crapping himself in Judges and Belshazzar doing the same iin Daniel), the NIV 84 glosses over it.

  15. St Andrew’s Roseville has just rolled out the 2011NIV. Haven’t had much of a read yet, but if it’s anything like the 1984, I’ll be happy.

    Oh, I think it’s quite reasonable for a company to own a version of the bible. I’m guessing Zondervan would do a much better job of distribution than a church organisation.

    Shalom.

  16. in the electronic device age you could go ISV. you wouldn’t have to worry about printed editions then. and any translation issues you can query them and get a response and they may change it in the next edition (tho they still haven’t answered my query on Isa 26.19!).

    my time at college has made me think TNIV is prob the best of the printed editions (in part due to the footnotes) – tho it too won’t be made anymore.

    why don’t you go completely left-field and go NJB – new jerusalem bible. it’s not bad at all!

      1. you just email them. and suggest how you would translate it better. for example they’re particularly trying to get poetry a bit nicer such as the philippian hymn and little couplets elsewhere. you might see some parallels or puns in the original language and suggest how they might reflect that in the english.

        they’ve just put out a printed edition so they may not be as responsive to feedback now but you’d hope they would be!

  17. I’m probably a little bit late on this, but I’ll put my thoughts anyway..

    I’m a big ESV fan. Working at Koorong I’ve had quite a number of language scholars come in and without fail they’ve all recommended the ESV. Their first choice is always the NASB, but I and they agree that it is just a little bit too hard to read normally. I find the ESV perfect because it’s accurate but also readable.
    One downside as people have mentioned, is that it can be a little bit clumsy when it’s read out.

    With all due respect, I would never use the TNIV. They discontinued it for a reason, and I tend to agree with one passionate scholar that told me ‘they should all be burnt'(he told me he had over 100 versions of the Bible at home.. how is that possible?!). I humbly suggest that it’s also very hard to make a case for the TNIV when you consider that the publishers themselves have made a public statement admitting that they made a mistake.

    I’m seeing a really interesting trend as well with the previously little-known HCSB. Moore College has recently chosen it as their Bible, and Steve Chong has plugged it which is really making it take off!

    1. Hi Chris
      just a couple of things:

      Moore doesn’t have a bible, we read from different ones and lecturers use different ones.

      as far as the holman goes, some have even written against the holman! yet some love it.
      and yes, some even use the TNIV.

      what is common is realising that we’re reading translations, which try in their own way to faithfully communicate words and thoughts, in other languages at other times, which sanctify the people of God.

      i reckon choose one you can order with british spelling, i hate reading ‘savior’, love reading ‘saviour’!

    2. hey doug – thanks for replying.

      hey chris. yep – one of the things i appreciated at moore is that there isn’t one party line bible. different faculty preferred different translations. i appreciated hearing their reasons.

      10 years ago when the esv came out, it was being plugged hard in some circles within sydney. i think moore probably helped to counter some of the rhetoric.

      it will be interesting to see how holman goes.
      i’ve been reading lately and enjoying.

      1. Whoops!

        I half phrased that wrong, but it also looks like I’ve got it wrong. A lot of customers I’ve spoken with have told me they’re getting a HCSB because Moore is plugging it. Maybe it’s just their individual lecturers as you say?

        I should explain statement about the TNIV a little more. It’s not so much the content that I’m concerned about but the context.
        I think we’d all agree that a translators job is to take the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and translate what it says into English. Nothing more. Nothing less. I am concerned for the TNIV because it was translated with an agenda. While I do humbly disagree with how they’ve translated certain things, it is most certainly the agenda behind the TNIV that is most concerning.

        That’s it from me. Thanks for clarifying Moore’s position!

  19. Pingback: Pinch + Punch // July 2011 | dave miers dot com
  20. Pingback: Have you made the switch to the HSCB? | dave miers dot com

  21. Came across your site and thought I would put in my 2 cents. I know this is a little late but I was a Youth Pastor for the last 5 plus years and I found that the NLT 2007 is by far the best translation for students. It is also a great translation for my personal study. The NLT under went a major update in 2007 to take it away from the paraphrase side and made it more literal. Just a thought.

Comments are closed.