I was browsing in a bookstore recently while a couple of employees were organizing the Bible section. I overheard an employee ask, “why can’t there be just one Bible?”
Good question. I have often wondered that myself.
It can really be confusing. It frustrates me greatly when someone uses a Bible verse or passage to support their political agenda. There’s so much more to consider when reading a Bible verse. You must understand the context of the verse, the background of who wrote it and the culture at the time it was written. You also have to understand the translation.
The translation issue is one that trips people up.
There are over 50 English translations of the Bible published. How can we possibly know which one is the most accurate translation?
Growing up in the church, I was taught that the King James Version was the only true Bible. I have learned that it is not. Trust me when I tell you that some folks are adamant about the KJV. I had one lady come up to me and get in my face telling me that the KJV is the only version she would ever read. Do you know how difficult it is the read and understand it?
None of us go around speaking in King James Version English. I remember people speaking in tongues and interpreting in the KJV as if that gave what was spoken more authority that it was God speaking. I don’t suppose people understood that Jesus never spoke in KJV or in any form of English.
So, if the KJV isn’t the best Bible version which one is? Is there really a need for so many different English versions of the Bible? The answer is, of course, no, there is no need for 50 different English versions of the Bible. This is especially true considering that there are hundreds of languages into which the entire Bible has not yet been translated. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with there being multiple versions of the Bible in a language. In fact, multiple versions of the Bible can actually be an aid in understanding the message of the Bible. There are two primary reasons for the different English Bible versions.
#1 - Over the years, the English language changes, making updates to an English version necessary. If a modern reader were to pick up a 1611 King James Version of the Bible, they would find it to be virtually unreadable. Everything from the spelling, to syntax, to grammar, to phraseology is very different. Linguists state that the English language has changed more in the past 400 years than the Greek language has changed in the past 2,000 years. Several times in church history, believers have gotten “used” to a particular Bible version and become fiercely loyal to it, resisting any attempts to update/revise it. Fierce loyalty to a particular version of the Bible is illogical and counterproductive. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common language of the people at that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into how a people/language group speaks/reads at that time, not how it spoke hundreds of years ago.
#2 - There are different translation methodologies for how to best render the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English. Some Bible versions translate as literally (word-for-word) as possible, commonly known as formal equivalence. Some Bible versions translate less literally, in more of a thought-for-thought method, commonly known as dynamic equivalence. All of the different English Bible versions are at different points of the formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence spectrum. The New American Standard Bible and the King James Version would be to the far end of the formal equivalence side, while paraphrases such as The Living Bible and The Message would be to the far end of the dynamic equivalence side. The advantage of formal equivalence is that it minimizes the translator inserting their own interpretations into the passages. The disadvantage of formal equivalence is that it often produces a translation so woodenly literal that it is not easily readable. The advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it usually produces a more readable Bible version. The disadvantage of dynamic equivalence is that it sometimes results in “this is what I think it means” instead of “this is what it says.” Neither method is right or wrong. The best Bible version is likely produced through a balance of the two,
For me personally, my go-to translation is the NIV, but I also use the AMP for study. When I want to get more modern reading, I like the Message. Another very helpful method is listening to the dramatized audio Bible because sometimes listening to it being read helps me to catch things I didn’t when I read it.
While it can be confusing to sort through it all and know exactly which one Bible version is the most accurate, you have to study it for yourself. Somehow the underlying truth has survived Kings and translators over the centuries.
