Although I'm interested in the distinctions between Bible translations, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the average church member gives the subject very little thought. And that's fine. On the one hand, I believe that's really a good thing because what's important is the message that our Bibles present. In some respects, Bibles should be read without overt consciousness of the translation itself. On the other hand I'm always concerned if a person is not connecting with his or her Bible simply because the translation itself is getting in the way.

I'm not overly concerned with which particular translation a person uses as long as the interaction between the person and the version is meaningful. When occasionally asked what translation I recommend, my overarching recommendation is that a person reads a modern translation for a primary Bible. I never recommend the King James Version because in my two decades of teaching experience, the language and vocabulary--as beautiful as they are--is mostly not understandable by the person reading this Bible. I'm not opposed to the KJV, per se, and suggest it is fine to be read in parallel with a modern translation, but I believe it is past its use for the large majority of people in today's culture. Nevertheless, according to the April CBA bestsellers list, the KJV is ranked at #2 (under the NKJV), so a lot of folks are still buying it. Obviously, they haven't asked my opinion!

When I say a modern translation, I'm not trying to proclaim bias against the very beautiful and useful translations of the past. But the reality is that our language is changing, perhaps moreso right now than in the last hundred or more years. Further, and more importantly, I believe that modern translations have the benefit of textual criticism and ongoing linguistic research to create translations in English that more accurately reflect the message and intentions of the original biblical writers. I'm especially interested in how well 21st century versions (ESV [2001], The Message [2002], HCSB [2004], NLTse [2004], NET Bible [2005], and TNIV [2005]) render the biblical texts. Future posts will focus on these translations, and I'll probably include a couple of late 20th century versions which I believe still hold significant voices in the discussion, namely NRSV (1989) and the NASB update (1995).

Of course, while my main recommendation is for a modern translation, it's no secret to any reader of this blog that I have certain translations I favor. And when asked for particular recommendations in the last year or so, I've primarily recommended the NLT, TNIV, and HCSB. After elaborating on the differences between them, I've suggested that a person go to a local bookstore and read passages in all three. Of course, such a suggestion always opens the door to a sales clerk intruding into the process to push a favorite translation and dissuade the purchase of one that I may have recommended. If you don't believe this happens, go to a Christian bookstore and hang out in the Bible section for awhile. Play dumb about translations when the sales clerk comes over, and you'll often see an agenda in place for pushing a particular version.

All this leads me to bring up an article I received this morning in a Google News Alert of which I have a number of subscriptions pertaining to various Bible translations. This is yet another article in which the writer seems to be surprised that the Bible is still such a bestseller, outselling even Harry Potter (who would've thought it?!). But the context of this particular article is different because it relates to a vote that the Muscogee County (Georgia) Schoolboard will make on April 23 as to which translation of the Bible will be used in their new Bible-as-literature elective. Care to guess which translation the superintendent is recommending? The New KIng James Version (which happens to be #1 on the April CBA list). I've wondered over and over who is buying the New King James, a translation in general that I would only recommend to a diehard KJV-only adherent as a compromising alternative. Such a suggestion by the superintendent and much of the other information in the article itself suggest to me that I'm very much correct about the state of unawareness when it comes to Bible translations. Consider the following:

• In attempt to update the reader on other translations besides the KJV, the writer Allison Kennedy offers brief publication background on three "newer" translations: the NIV, NASB, and NKJV. Such a list would have been understandable if this article had been written in say, 1985, but there has been much significant progress made since these three translations. Of note, Kennedy doesn't even mention the 1995 update to the NASB which makes me wonder if she was using an older source for her information.
• From the article: "Joy Ahlman is a student of the Bible who takes her translations seriously. For years, the Christ Community Church member used the New International Version and the New Living Translation because both have clear language, but now she's recently switched to the New American Standard. 'I prefer to take time to study and it has cross-references and translations of different words at the bottom.'" Well, it will certainly take Joy more time to plow through the NASB than the NIV and NLT, but I'm more stunned at her reason for switching regarding "cross-references and translations of different words at the bottom." Such features are readily available in editions of the NIV and NLT, too. But such a statement demonstrates a common confusion between text and features in the minds of many Bible readers. Many times I've had to explain the difference to a church member between the text itself as the actual scripture as opposed to study notes and other features. And I've also had to explain that two editions of Bibles don't mean two different translations.
• And of course, KJV-only adherents weigh in for Kennedy's article: "'I teach and preach from the King James,' said Vann, pastor of The Rock Baptist Church in Cataula, Ga. 'The reason I do that is because newer translations leave out certain words or phrases. It's not that I'm a King-James-only guy, but it makes the people dive in deeper.' Last year, Vann led the church through a study comparing some of the translations. 'It blew their socks off,' he said of his members, many of whom weren't aware of the differences." Yeah, I bet. They're so concerned about things being taken out of their Bible, they don't realize they're buying into a textual tradition in which things have been added that the biblical writers never wrote. You'd think that there would be concern that goes both ways. A little bit of text critical knowledge would go a long way in such situations.
• Granted, this is a nitpick, but at one point Kennedy calls the New Living Translation the "New Living Bible" and says that it comes in many versions, although what she means is that it comes in many editions.
• Interestingly, in the entire article, there was no mention of the ESV or TNIV, which may say more for the awareness of these particular translations than anything about the writer of the article.

When I taught Bible at a private Christian school for five years, I allowed students to use any translation they wanted with the exception of the King James Version. Although I've mainly used the TNIV over the past year while teaching, I haven't pushed it as a translation. In over twenty years of teaching the Bible in various venues, I've always encouraged a variety of translation use, and I've only said anything to something about their translation on a very small handful of occasions. I've made a point not to put down any particular translation. And any concern has usually been in regard to use of the KJV in which I felt they consistently misunderstood what what they were reading. Sometimes, I merely offer a Bible as a gift without making a big deal about their use of the KJV such as recently when I gave a copy of the NLT to a member of the class I teach on Sunday mornings. He now carries it every Sunday and has told me that he feels like he can understand the Bible for the first time in his life.

My overriding concern is that people have a life-changing experience with God's Word. I never want a particular translation to get in the way of that possibility. What's translation awareness like in your circles? Is it is a big deal? Should it be addressed occasionally or should it be ignored? Feel free to post your thoughts in the comments.

Tags: Translations