A thorough discussion of the relative merits of the various Bible versions is far too extensive for this website, so we'll keep this as simple as possible. This discussion will focus primarily on the New Testament.
The three main issues, between Bible versions, are manuscript selection ( often called textual criticism ), translation, and readability. Most Bible versions seem similar, but some of the modern language translations have omissions, which relate to some of the early manuscripts, upon which they are based. This has very little to do with translation. There are a few differences between versions, which occur from errors in translation, but with the exception of using charity as a translation for agape, in 1 Corinthians 13, these differences resulting from translation errors are minor.
There is one exception to the above statement. THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES is not a reliable Bible. No serious Bible study should be done using that Bible. It is based upon the most inferior of the Greek texts, the one known as the " Wescott and Hort text ". The " translation " is manufactured to match the beliefs of a particular religion.
Few people today understand what the Bible really is. In our day, we nearly always find it as a single two-part book,- Old Testament and New
Testament. There are even some people today, who think the Bible was written by a single author. In reality, God inspired about 40 different authors to write the 66 " books " that comprise most modern Bibles. The Bible is actually a collection of these 66 books, ranging in length from one written page, to as many as 100 pages, depending on the type size and page size.These books were written over a space of perhaps 2000 years. The way, in which they relate to each other, cannot be reasonably explained in any other fashion, than to say that they have a similar Source,- inspired by one true God.
It is a lack of education, or a plain lack of honesty, that brings some teachers to be simplistic, and say," GOD WROTE THE BIBLE. " If you have ever read the Bible, including what it says about itself, you know that God inspired the books of the Bible, but did not write it. We can say rightly that it is God's word to us, or God,s message, but it is utter foolishness for people to say that God wrote it. Those, who rightly divide the word of truth, can easily determine that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that ," All scripture is God breathed. " That is obvious when you look at the rest of the verse, and the Bible as a whole. In the original language, the titles of the synoptic gospels simply say," ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ (According to Matthew ), ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ, and ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ, respectively. "
These accounts were certainly " given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. " But, the differences between accounts, clearly point to a number of authors, not one. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit helped them in their attempts to remember incidences and quotes, that took place 20 or more years after they took place. These differences are what would be expected when a number of reliable witnesses to the same event. Usually, those who claim that God wrote the Bible, are totally ignorant of how the Bible came to be, and ignorant concerning the original languages in which the Bible books were written.
The process of putting together a Bible starts with manuscript selection. With regard to the New Testament, a choice must be made as to which Greek manuscripts will be selected for use. In other words, which early Greek manuscripts are we going to use in our original language text? The basic manuscripts have been in existence for well over 1000 years, Most of the original language texts are ok, but those from Northern Africa omit a number of words, or verses, that are present in the manuscripts from the area primarily evangelized by the first apostles. That these omissions should not have occured, can be determined by reading the writings of the early church fathers, and by comparing to other scriptures.
Two early manuscripts from the 4th century AD have been given far more attention than they deserve. In this case older does not mean better. One is called the codex Sinaiaticus, literally pulled from a wastebasket in the Mt. Sinai monastary in the mid 1800's. It is abbreviated with a letter that looks like a Greek chi, or " X ".
The second old manuscript is called the codex Vaticanus, a manuscript that was discovered in a library in the Vatican in the 14th century. No one knows precisely where it came from, or how it got there. It is abbreviated with a letter that looks like the Greek beta, or " B ".
If your Bible has 130 or more differences with the traditional Bibles, like the King James and the New King James ( differences which are mostly omissions ), these omissions came almost exclusively from the use of these two corrupt manuscripts. A number of modern Bibles, namely the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, Living Bible, contain these omissions, which is the reason why we don't recommend these versions.
The subject of Bible versions can become quite controversial. This is particularly true concerning those who hold the " King James only "
view. Due to a particularly nasty e-mail, which I received recently from a King James only person, I feel it necessary to include a little more information here. There are pastors and teachers out there, who are making flat statements about Bible versions to gullible listeners, that are simply false, and anyone who has studied the subject, knows they are false. They get away with it, because few people care enough about Biblical accuracy, to research the subject for themselves. They frequently resort to defaming particular Bible Versions over things that are totally irrelevant.King James only advocates are fond of referring to the original 1611 edition as the " authorized " version. What they don't tell you, is by whom it was authorized, and its significance. This " authorized " version was authorized by King James, the same King James that was so intolerant in his government, that many Bible believing christians had to flee England for their lives. These same refugees became a significant percentage of the early settlers in, what is now, the United States of America. This stamp of authority by King James I, of England, is certainly not a virtue.
In addition, it should be noted that the meaning of many English words has changed since 1611. What was translated " charity " is in our language of today called " unselfish love ". Frequently, what was translated "conversation" by the old King James, would be called "conduct" today. There are other examples. One horrendous translation in the Old King James occurs in Acts 12:4 where they translated πασχα as Easter instead of Passover. The KJV is more accurate than some of the modern versions, but there are a few places where the KJV scholars could have done much better.
The old King James is suprisingly accurate considering the limited number of manuscripts that were available to the textual critics and translators of that day, but it seems rather foolish to try to share our christian faith in a language that is foreign to the English speaking Americans of today.
We strongly recommend the New King James Bible because of its outstanding accuracy, and easy ( about 9th grade ) readability. Much nonsense has been published concerning the fact that Nelson Publishers chose to put a symbol on the cover of the NKJV, called the " triquetra ",- an ancient symbol for the Trinity. A symbol can mean one thing to one person, and something entirely different, to another. Whether the triquetra has, in the past, been used by others in an unholy manner, is irrelevant, and bears no relationship to accuracy of the NKJV itself.
Note: You can look up topics and references in a number of different Bibles, by clicking on the Internet Bible Search link below.
