A Guide to Versions of the Bible
I am definitely not a scholar of Biblical versions. My knowledge of the different versions, their purposes and the backgrounds of their authors is very limited. As such, I am grabbing information from several sources to try to give an overview of Biblical translation and to hopefully guide those who are looking to get a Bible to a version that will be best suited to their needs.
There are quite a number of good Bible versions out there, but there are some horrible versions too. First and foremost on the list of horrible versions is the Queen James bible ("bible" is intentionally lower case). This is an LGBT+++ affirming bastardization of the Holy Word of God. I am sorry if that wording is offensive to you, but the mere existence of this version of the "bible" is even more offensive to God and to all real Christians. The QJV was written with the express purpose of removing all references to the alphabet lifestyles as being sinful and worthy of punishment. As such, this version will lead thousands of its readers to Hell, thinking that their lifestyle choices are not abominable to God. The writers of this version will burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity.
There is also a "gender neutral" bible called the "Sunday Scriptures for Reading Aloud", which has been written in such a way as to strip certain references to God of their gender specificity. This appears to be a liturgical reading list aimed at Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran congregations, the stated purpose of its preparation is to remove some preparatory time from the worship leaders calendar. I just wonder if those who are using this online resource are aware of the ideological purposes behind it's publication. Open Table Network, an LGBT+++ advocacy website, explains the changes made to the Scriptures in this way: "The translation uses he/him pronouns for Father, for Son, and for Jesus (that’s an argument for another day). But God, Lord, the Holy Spirit, the eternal Word, and the eternal Christ, take no pronouns." [a] There is the admission that the definitive use of male pronouns was unavoidable given the obvious male nature of the words Father, Son and the name of Jesus, who was undoubtedly a man. This is a subtle but intentional effort to alter God in order to make
HIM more palatable to those who are already otherwise confused about
sexuality by demonic teachings, but they are blatant in their complaints that they were unable to take it further.
Along these same lines, I have learned that way back in 1996, there was a new version of the New International Version of the Bible with a sub-title of "Inclusive Language Edition". This Bible version was designed "For Christians committed to biblical equality"[b], but it appears to have only been printed in Britain. The "translators" apparently thought that the Bible did not do enough to place men and women on an equal plane. This, of course, ignores the importance of Rahab the prostitute, from the Jericho story, to the lineage of Jesus; the huge role that Esther played in saving the Jewish people from destruction; the roles of Ruth and Naomi in the lineage of Jesus; and the fact that the story of Jesus' resurrection was initially told by an angel to women, and it was initially shared by these very same women. In a culture wherein women had little legal status, the fact that God used women to start to tell of the resurrection of the Messiah was a huge move in placing men and women on an equal footing in the church, all the while maintaining the hierarchy of the church, based on the curse placed upon the woman in Genesis 3:16, placing the woman in submission under the man. The fact that women, having been elevated in the Bible in these ways, is still not enough for these people shows us that they do not understand the Scriptures as they are written.
In my mind, these are two of the more egregious intentional manipulations of the Scriptures for ideological purposes that I have found, but I don't want to focus on only these versions. There are other Bible versions that, while not necessarily heretical, they blur the lines between what is a good version to study and what should merely be used to better understand difficult passages.
Below you will see a chart that I came across on the Bible Gateway website on a page that they devote to comparing different versions of the Bible. I thought that this was a useful chart to determine where the Bible that you have or are thinking of getting falls in the word-for-word to thought-for-thought line. A word-for-word Bible is best for intense studying of the Word. It gives more weight to maintaining the meaning of the Scriptures, even at the cost of ease of reading. A thought-for-thought version is designed for those who struggle more with the language of the Scriptures and it seeks to present the spirit of the Word in a format that is more easily understood. For those who are new to the faith or who are not invigorated by a deeper study of the Word in the same way that I am, this can be very useful.
Full names of the above Bible versions are as follows: Interlinear, New American Standard Bible/Legacy Standard Bible, Amplified Bible, Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, King James Version, New King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version (updated edition), New American Bible, Christian Standard Bible, New English Translation, New International Version, Illustrated Children's Bible, New Living Translation, New International Readers Version, Good News Testament, Living Bible, The Message
There is a warning that I have to include regarding the
thought-for-thought versions on the far right side of this chart. The
chart includes The Message and The Living Bible, but I would also
include The Passion translation as well as The Mirror in this warning as well. These Bible
versions are paraphrases of the Bible, and they are advertised as such.
Effort is not made to retain the weight of the original languages of the
Scriptures; rather, this version offers what the author understands when they read
the word-for-word versions of the Bible. In other words, these versions
are the Bible in the words of the translators. This does not mean that
they are wrong (though they might be); this means that one should not base your theology on
what you read in these versions. The goal of these versions was to make
the Bible easy to understand, and some theological truths will become
watered down in the process.
Another warning that I present to you regarding the four versions mentioned above are that they are all sole-author versions. What I mean by this is that one man worked on it. While there was likely some collaboration with trusted minds when dealing with certain passages, these were not collaborative efforts where a group of people studied the Word and came to a consensus on what the Word was saying. The best Bible translations came about through collaborative translation of the entire text rather than any one person translating any one passage on their own. When one man translates Scripture on their own, this work has a higher likelihood of becoming tainted by any one man's personal biases about the Scripture; just like my own writings are biased by my own understandings. Nothing that the sole writer states should be taken as a gospel truth until it is compared with the word-for-word Scriptures; that applies to these Bible versions as well as my own articles. Do not blindly trust what I write, but test is all against the Word of God.
Along these same lines, I am not a fan of any Bible version that has been printed with a Bible teacher's commentary included. For example, John MacArthur, during his lifetime, published several different Bible versions with his own commentary included, as have David Jeremiah and Charles Stanley, and there are likely others. This is not to say that these men are not trustworthy in their teachings, but I believe that everybody has at least one area where their theology will turn out to be wrong, and to place all of one's faith in any given man is not a good idea when studying theology. So to read a Bible wherein you gain only the insights of one man in the commentary can lead one to deception. There is also a possibility that the actual Word has been somewhat altered in order to emphasize the understanding of the pastor whose name is on the cover.
Taking this concern to the extreme, this is how the Mormon church came to be, as well as Islam and the Jehovah's Witnesses. One man claimed to receive a special revelation of the Bible that is contrary to that which was passed down to us by the apostles, and entire congregations have been lead astray. Galatians 1:8-9 contains Paul's warnings to us about this; "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"
This warning also applies to any extra-biblical writings that are to be held in the same esteem as the Scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon as was written by Joseph Smith in order to grant legitimacy to the extra-biblical teachings that he spread.
There are also sect-specific versions of the Bible that one needs to be aware of. One might purchase one of these "bibles" because it contains the word "Bible" in the title, and you wouldn't necessarily know that it is a false version of the Word of God unless you are already well versed in the Scriptures. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible called the New World Translation. If this was the first Bible that you received, having recently decided to follow Jesus, this 'bible' would tell you that Jesus is not God, that He is a lower created being and that He is not worthy of worship. How this distinction does not disqualify the JW's from being considered a Christian sect, I have no idea. The JW's also don't believe that the Holy Spirit is God, but is rather just a force of God acting on mankind. In fact, salvation for JW's is attained by living according to the teachings of the Watchtower Society, and not the teachings of the Bible.
The above has not been an exhaustive listing of Bibles to avoid or to hold at arm's length; there has to be a level of personal responsibility and research practised when you are looking at buying your first or additional Bibles for your own reading and/or studying. If you are new to the faith, talk to the person who brought you to the faith or find a pastor of a Bible teaching church. This can be hard to determine for a new Christian, and I would love to try to narrow it down for you, but this blog is read not only all over North America, but even all around the world. Every town and city will have its own churches that hold to doctrines that can only be determined to be truly Biblical through careful study. Every "christian" pastor will tell you that he teaches the Bible; it will be up to you to determine if that is true. If you are new to the faith, my best advice to you is to get one of the Bibles to the left of the centre on the above chart. This will get you a more word-for-word version of the original texts, and if the pastor that you are sitting under is teaching something other than what your Bible is telling you, or he tells you that you need to get a different, specific Bible that aligns with his teachings, then get out of that church and search for a new one.
I will say that as I look at the chart of Bibles above, keeping in mind my warnings about the paraphrases at the right end of the chart and my previous mention of the inclusive language version of the NIV, I put a certain amount of faith in all of those listed versions. I am not completely knowledgeable about all of these versions, but I am trusting the source along with what I do know about these Bibles. But one has to keep in mind that there are alternate versions of some of the above versions of the Bible. For example, the Revised Standard Version has a Catholic version of the Bible, which seems to be separate from another version. If you are not aware of why this is something to be careful of, please read this article that I wrote about some of the deceptions of the Catholic Church. It is because of the articles on the mockeries of the devil that I felt that I needed to write this article about Bible versions.
There are some Bible versions out there that do not mention the shed blood of Jesus. If your Bible has no reference at all to the shed blood of Jesus, get rid of it. There could be a couple of reasons for this lack of specific language. One is that the publisher is trying to make the Bible more comfortable for its readers, and the removal of the mention of Jesus' blood is a way to achieve that. The other reason is more nefarious. The Old Testament sacrificial system is the basis upon which salvation from the punishment for sin is found. Jesus came as the only acceptable sacrifice and by removing the mention of His shed blood, there is an attempt to gut the Word of the power that it contains. It is only by the shedding of Jesus' blood that we are saved, and any version that does not specifically mention His blood is a version that is not to be trusted.
I cannot emphasize too much that those who are new to Christianity should not blindly accept anything that they read or hear online about the Bible or theology in general as accurate. That includes my own writings. I used to know a young man that was new to the faith and he was eager to learn, but he gleaned a lot of information from the internet, and while we were meeting one time, he began to talk about certain things that he was excited about having learned about the Bible, but I had to correct almost everything that he mentioned. He had not compared what he was being told with the words of Scripture. If what you read or hear does not align with both the language and the spirit of an accurate translation of the Bible, you need to reject it. If what someone tells you regarding Scripture or theology does not align with the Bible, you need to reject their teachings. That being said, nobody is perfect. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that everyone has at least one area of theology where their understanding is not correct. There are some gifted Bible teachers out there that get some aspects of theology wrong.
One example that I can think of is the departed John MacArthur. He was a wonderful teacher of the Scriptures, but one of a few errors in theology that he held to is that one can repent of receiving the Mark of the Beast of Revelation. Scripture gives no such escape; it clearly and simply says that all that receive the mark will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Revelation 14:9-11; "Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Only MacArthur's personal doctrine contradicts this. This is a dangerous teaching. It insinuates that one can live under the coming Beast system and still enter eternity with God. The Bible is clear, you cannot serve two masters, and alignment with Satan is aggression towards God. In Matthew 6:24, Jesus tells us that, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other." Any man that accepts the Mark of the Beast makes the choice to reject God. It's just that simple.
We also need to be very careful about even reading any Bible translations from the internet. We live in a world where convenience is king, and almost everyone has a phone with a data plan on it. This is by design. I will always encourage everybody to invest in at least one good, physical Bible. If you can afford it, I encourage buying several different translations so that you have a library of books that you can reference if you are having trouble understanding something in your go-to Bible. Buying a used Bible from a thrift store or a used book store is a good way to expand your collection without the need to spend a lot of money. This is where you can find some good, old versions of the Bible. The reason that I encourage physical Bibles, and even older copies if available, is that it is too easy to alter an electronic version of the Bible; whether done with malice aforethought or under honest pretenses. Altering the words of Scripture can have an affect on the meaning of Scripture.
I will also recommend an interlinear Bible and a Strong's Concordance for those who are serious about Bible study. An interlinear Bible will show you the original Hebrew or Greek texts, as appropriate, including the Strong's Concordance listing of the number of the word for reference purposes. Along with the original language text is a word-for-word direct English translation of the Bible. The word-for-word translation can be difficult to read since the English language uses punctuation and sentence structure that is different from Hebrew and Greek, but this version is helpful for study. The interlinear Bible will also give you the proper English translation in another column.
A good set of old dictionaries is a good idea too. I have a 1976 set of World Book Dictionaries that include archaic and even some Biblical definitions of words. This set of dictionaries has been invaluable to me in my own studies.
And when I am talking about old versions of books, whether Bibles or other reference materials, I mean pre-1980's, at the very least. I have a 1984 NIV which was my study Bible as a teenager, and that isn't bad, but newer NIV versions should be approached with wariness. I only use that Bible as a reference if I am struggling with a passage.
My personal New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a first edition from 1971. I also have a King James Bible from at least as far back as 1971 as well. I more recently got ahold of a set of four books that contain the Bible as well as historical information regarding earlier Bible versions and other useful facts; this set dates to 1912. This is what I mean by "old".
I will tell you why I have chosen the 1971 NASB as my personal Bible. The King James Bible is favoured by many because of the claims that it is based closely on the original texts of the Bible. The problem is that the old English language can be hard to understand. The New King James Bible seeks to remedy that somewhat. Some translations seek to use the King James Bible as the basis and just update the language, but the NASB was translated from these same original texts as the King James Bible, but with updated language. The NASB also capitalizes all pronouns that reference any of the persons of the Godhead in the same way that I do in my own writings.
There is a lot to consider when one is looking for a Bible. I hope that this has not discouraged you if you are searching for a first or an additional Bible. Having a physical copy of the God-breathed Word is of unspeakable value, especially in a world that bears ever decreasing respect for the Word of God and places ever increasing value on convenience. How can we know if the electronic Word has been altered unless we also have a physical Word that we can trust?
We have seen absolutely heretical versions of the Bible getting published in order to push an ideological viewpoint that is contrary to the will of God. There are likely thousands of new Believers that are being lead down a dark path following a corrupted version of the Bible, thinking that they are living as the true Bible tells them to live, simply because they do not know any better. The Word of God is a living entity, but that life only exists in the true and unadulterated Word. And it is only the true and unadulterated Word that will result in eternity with God. So please, be careful of what you read and what you listen to. There are numerous false teachings which will not result in a doomed eternity, but there are also too many that will.
[a] https://opentable.lgbt/our-blog/2025/5/8/god-is-not-he-a-bible-translation-with-a-gender-neutral-god
[b] https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/new-international-version-inclusive-language-edition/
Comments
Post a Comment