Preferred English Bible Translation?

I'm curious to know which translation people prefer and why. Feel free to answer in the poll above and give your thoughts in a reply.

I use ESV a lot because it is the translation used by my church and my university. For my personal Bible reading time I prefer to use KJV though. Part of this is because of copyright - it bothers me that some companies who hold copyrights on Bible translations use it to limit their distribution. I sometimes use a free and open source Bible study program called Xiphos. ESV used to be available with it, but Crossway asked for the distribution of it to stop. Anyway, the KJV is an accurate and historically significant translation so I do like it, but I'm by no means a "KJV-onlyist". I do like that it's in the public domain so it's available basically everywhere. I also like how the early modern English style helps differentiate between singular and plural second-person pronouns (thou and thee vs. ye and you).

I grew up with NLT because that was my mother's preference but today I believe it is way too loose with the language of Scripture and falls too close to being a paraphrase for me to be comfortable with making it my main translation.

I started out with the 1984 NIV and that has always been my favorite.  

I also use the ESV at times and that would be my 2nd favorite.  

The 2011 NIV preserves enough of the 1984 translation to be palatable, although I dislike the gender-neutral modifications.

I also like the NLT and use it every so often but agree it is too loose a translation. 
Better to go with the NASB or NKJV if you don't care for the NIV or ESV.

I like having choices but wish there weren't so many, because it creates "tribes" and division.

^I am glad you are not a KJV only-ist.  That is one of my biggest pet peeves in the Christian community (and there are many...).  There's nothing like some rigid legalist yelling that you are "going to hell" because you refuse to read the "only accurate translation of the Bible."   That is so wearisome, not to mention unBiblical.

Yeah the whole KJV-onlyism thing is pretty odd. I understand that there's some debate among people who know a lot about textual criticism for which manuscripts are the best to use and things like that, but saying that the KJV is absolutely the only English Bible translation that anyone should use is too far imo. Even crazier is when people say that some sort of interaction with the KJV is required for salvation, because that's literally a false gospel, though I don't know how many people actually believe that.

I prefer NIV.  It has the right balance of readability and accuracy for me.  I haven't dissected the difference between the newer and older versions though (I voted older just because I'm older than 1984).  It's all personal taste.

I don't like the KJV-only-ism either.  I have thought about starting a parody NIV-only website or something similar in the past, but I'm afraid that would be misconstrued too.

I went with NLT, although to choose 1 is a little artificial.  I use it generally, but if I have questions or am really studying something, I think it's extremely helpful to pull out an ESV (or NASB, nearly as good) to be able to compare a translation with polar opposite philosophies.  When I was in ministry (which, God willing, we be coming again in the next 6 months or so? we'll see!), I always had an NLT and ESV open on my desk and would generally consult both before constructing a message or whatever.  If I needed more help, I would go to an NIV study bible mostly for the study notes which were often very helpful (and I grew up on NIV).  Only very, very rarely did I find it necessary or helpful to have to go any further than that.  Honestly, if I didn't have my questions answered, going further (legit commentaries or whatever) was almost never fruitful anyway.

One of the most common questions I would get was "there are so many versions/translations, which one is the best?"  Which is hard, because pretty much all of the modern translations are excellent for their intended purpose.  What's underrated is understanding the philosophies of the different translations, how they're different and similar.  Otherwise it's a little bit like "what's the best way to cook food?"  A microwave, stove top, and smoker are all great, but what are you cooking?

100%, I'll say no to KJV only, of course.  It was a good translation in 1611, but all of language, language study, and best available ancient manuscripts have progressed in 400 years.  Their argument boils down to a belief that the translation was specifically and uniquely inspired, as opposed to the "standard" "evangelical" belief that the original (lost to time and history) writings were inspired, and that our goal is to be as faithful as is possible to those original writings.  If he actually believed any of what he talked about, I suspect that Rockerz would have been KJV-only.

Mainly use the NLT for regular reading, however will use other translations also like the NKJV for comparison. Our local Church is now using the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) which is meant to be an accurate translation but does not read in a flowing way. I would prefer they had stuck with the NIV.

By the way I totally agree with CrimsonWarrior about the copyright thing.  I also agree with Grindboy about choosing just one.  I like the cooking analogy.

Erasmus wrote:Mainly use the NLT for regular reading, however will use other translations also like the NKJV for comparison. Our local Church is now using the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) which is meant to be an accurate translation but does not read in a flowing way. I would prefer they had stuck with the NIV.

The HCSB is good especially with teens.  I used it with my last youth group.  LifeWay was selling them for $5 and I stocked my youth room with them.  It was great because each kid having different translations got confusing with group reading.  Also, using KJV or NKJV, you could see the kids just gloss over because they couldn't relate to the language.

Nowadays, I use the Christian Standard Bible which is just the new version of the HCSB.  I preach from it because it is super easy to understand.  My old people hate it and wishI would use the KJV.

The first Bible I got was an NASB. it clicked with me instantly. I had read the NIV when I was a kid, and just didn't like it. I switched to NLT for a while when I was going to one church that used it, but some of the translations are a little off, so I've stuck with NASB. The only version I dislike is the Message as a translation. I know people that it is the only version they read from, and it has some serious flaws. Now, if you want to read it as a nice paraphrase, then I can understand.

Yeah, the Message very much falls into the paraphrase category. If you want to see why, all you need to do is read its version of Psalm 1...

Even though it's broadly accepted as the "Nearly Inspired Version," I still use the [1984] NIV I got as a child.  It's what I'm used to and familiar with so I've held onto it.  I've been considering getting an ESV however, as that's what seems to be the preferred version from most of the pastors I know who've studied both Greek and Hebrew in depth.  It's funny though, there have been so many instances when the pastor will be preaching from the ESV and will say something to the effect of, "... but a better translation of this word is..." [what my NIV says].  I've become a little skeptical as to why the NIV is so looked down upon but haven't taken the time to look into it in much depth.  Anyone know what the primary complaints of the NIV are?  Thanks!

I use the kjv bible mostly, that doesn't mean I won't use other translations. Other bibles I have been known to use are niv( 1984), amplified bible and the message bible

Long story short, NKJV.

Long story not as short, with explanation of how I got here:

I grew up with the NIV. It's the translation all the pastors I sat under used since I was little (Didn't exist the first few years I was around but I don't remember that ). I honestly didn't read it much and never really considered anything else. When I got saved in 2010 I started reading scripture regularly. I read my NIV Bible and bought a parallel Bible that had the NIV, NASB, KJV and NLT. In reading the parallel Bible I realized how much extra was in the NLT and it made me feel really uncomfortable. On a few occasions it was several extra sentences. I did enjoy it for clarity when a passage was tough to understand. I also noticed the NASB seemed almost identical to the KJV save changing the old words for something more easily understood. It was at that point I looked into how Bibles were translated and understood. NLT is a revision of a paraphrase, NIV is more of a phrase by phrase translation and many of the rest are word by word (KJV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, CSB, etc). I think people tend to think the latter are more precise and the word for word always seems closer to KJV in general so they can "bridge the gap" a little better. 

So, over 2010-11 I read through my NIV Bible for the first time. The next year, based on recommendation regarding its accuracy to the original languages, I bought an NASB Bible and read it through in 2012 with my wife. I thoroughly enjoyed it. My brother recommended a Thompson Chain Reference Bible for study and said how much he enjoyed the NKJV. I purchased that version every year for the next 4 years. I read through and highlighted and marked those up, would rebuy and do it again the following year. Two years ago Thompson needed to do a reprint of the NKJV. I was forced to choose from other options, I went ESV that year. Didn't like it at first. Phrasing was different, printing format was different (my NKJV puts each verse on a new line. ESV was buried in the paragraph). Yet I grew to love and enjoy ESV over 2 years. Went back to NKJV this year and may change next year.

Final comments, I'm not big on a "translation" being firmly correct. I've always liked to use multiple versions when reading/studying. I prefer word for word. NIV can seem too loose for me at times and the fact that they decided to make gender neutral revisions in the late 90's makes me wary of the motivations behind the translation (though they revised it in 2011 to "fix" that). People in my congregation use it though and it's no matter to me. I like to hear it in Bible study for contrast. Becoming a pastor 4 years ago, I haven't had the guts to preach from the KJV. It'd be too hard for different people and I'm not hear to please KVJ-only folks (there aren't any in my congregation anyway). Most people didn't notice when I switched from NKJV to ESV.

Bottom line: I tend to be okay with any word by word translation and the NIV. Not big on NLT, don't like the Message, the Passion Translation or other paraphrases.

NLT, despite it’s name, isn’t a revision of the LB.  It’s a new translation from critical Greek/Hebrew.  I don’t know why they chose to call it NLT, which seems to often just lead to confusion.

I can 100% relate to the comment on none being “firmly correct” though.  As I sort of alluded to earlier, the “which is the best?” question just isn’t that simple, and none are technically inspired in the strict sense, but most modern translations quite excellent and helpful for their intended purpose.

Grindboy wrote:NLT, despite it’s name, isn’t a revision of the LB.  It’s a new translation from critical Greek/Hebrew.  I don’t know why they chose to call it NLT, which seems to often just lead to confusion.

Interesting. Thank you for clarifying. I have read multiple places that it began as a revision of the Living Bible. Yet, I think you are more clear with that description of the actual translation we have today. The seed might have been a revision but the process proved to aim at what you stated. In fact the preface for the NLT in my parallel Bible mirrors what you stated. It is a thought by thought translation that has aimed at increasing accuracy through its revisions.

I used to like the NIV, but now I tend to go with NLT.

Kerrick wrote:Even though it's broadly accepted as the "Nearly Inspired Version," I still use the [1984] NIV I got as a child.  It's what I'm used to and familiar with so I've held onto it.  I've been considering getting an ESV however, as that's what seems to be the preferred version from most of the pastors I know who've studied both Greek and Hebrew in depth.  It's funny though, there have been so many instances when the pastor will be preaching from the ESV and will say something to the effect of, "... but a better translation of this word is..." [what my NIV says].  I've become a little skeptical as to why the NIV is so looked down upon but haven't taken the time to look into it in much depth.  Anyone know what the primary complaints of the NIV are?  Thanks!

I haven't heard a lot of negativity on the NIV. For some reason I just never liked the translation. Now, trying to go off of memory so I may be wrong, and I don't want to start any bad discussions, I know that a lot of KJV only people do not like the NIV, because I believe there are a couple of verses left out. These verses are in the NASB with a note that they do not appear in earlier transcripts. They use this to point out that the NIV are authorized by Satan or something like that. I think I did a check and found out that, yes the NIV omits these verse without a note. So THAT could be where some of the hate could come from. I think that these couple of verses are not game changers, so it's not the worse thing in the world. Now I could be totally wrong about what I just said.

I think much of the negativity surrounding NIV2011 is the use of gender-neutral language ("sons" is changed to "children" in Romans 8:14, for example). My problem with that is not that it really changes the meaning all that much, but because that simply is not what the original language says, and I'd rather not use a pre-interpreted translation of the Bible.

deathisgain wrote:

Kerrick wrote:Even though it's broadly accepted as the "Nearly Inspired Version," I still use the [1984] NIV I got as a child.  It's what I'm used to and familiar with so I've held onto it.  I've been considering getting an ESV however, as that's what seems to be the preferred version from most of the pastors I know who've studied both Greek and Hebrew in depth.  It's funny though, there have been so many instances when the pastor will be preaching from the ESV and will say something to the effect of, "... but a better translation of this word is..." [what my NIV says].  I've become a little skeptical as to why the NIV is so looked down upon but haven't taken the time to look into it in much depth.  Anyone know what the primary complaints of the NIV are?  Thanks!

I haven't heard a lot of negativity on the NIV. For some reason I just never liked the translation. Now, trying to go off of memory so I may be wrong, and I don't want to start any bad discussions, I know that a lot of KJV only people do not like the NIV, because I believe there are a couple of verses left out. These verses are in the NASB with a note that they do not appear in earlier transcripts. They use this to point out that the NIV are authorized by Satan or something like that. I think I did a check and found out that, yes the NIV omits these verse without a note. So THAT could be where some of the hate could come from. I think that these couple of verses are not game changers, so it's not the worse thing in the world. Now I could be totally wrong about what I just said.

Interesting.  I'd never heard it in that level of detail before.  I know in general KJV people don't like the NIV.  The version I heard is that when the NIV first came out it became the biggest "competition" to the KJV and thus the biggest target for attack by the KJV-only-ists.

Yeah, if there's any "extra" hate for the NIV I would agree with previous posters.  KJV only are obviously against anything not KJV, and for a long time NIV was the highest profile and most obvious target.  And then especially with the TNIV in/around '01-02 (?) there was some controversy around A) gender-neutrality; and B) in some cases gender neutral renderings where many believed the best renderings and original intent would have been gender specific and potentially altered/damaged the meaning.  I don't know at all what's happened with any revisions or whatever, or if TNIV is considered a separate translation or whatever, I just don't even know, but there was some blowback on all of that for sure. 

Still, it's obviously been hugely used and influential.  In fact, the biggest reason that I started using others was that I found myself, in my own mind, thinking so specifically NIV that I was almost unconsciously becoming a sort of "NIV-only" mindset, which I didn't think was healthy.  Exploring other translations has really been a benefit to me and my understanding of Scripture, and I'd recommend switching up or at least consulting more than one to most anybody!

Interesting info about the NIV.  Yeah the gender-neutral thing gets a bit   from me.  I didn't know they "undid" that with a later version but I'm glad to hear it.  As for the "missing" verses, my NIV has notes that "some versions have..." for those.  Like was mentioned above, I don't think those verses change much of anything so it's not a big deal either way... but my inclination is that if those were added later... then they're not God's Word and they SHOULD be omitted.

Wholehearted agreement with Kerrick re: “omitted” texts.  IMO the singular issue is inspiration.  In (most of our, not to speak for everybody!) our doctrine of inspiration it’s the original writings which are uniquely inspired.  When it becomes clear that a text wasn’t original (“long ending” to Mark, woman caught in adultery in John being far and away the two most notable examples), IMO they should be omitted immediately.  Clearly nobody asked me!

This poll is interesting generally.  Mostly I’m surprised how poorly the ESV is doing, I would have guessed it would have been a top contender.  Small sample size, but still.

That latter point is of great interest to me! As a pastor who preaches through whole books it makes me question if I should preach those texts but the woman caught in adultery is one of THE MOST often quoted passages in this day. How many of us, even from non-Christians, has heard "he who has no sin..."? Is it necessary? Not at all but would I skip over it? That's an interesting question. 

I preached through 1st John a few years ago and did not preach 1 John 5:7 within that particular passage, through I briefly touched on the "controversy." KJV-only folk tend to say all other versions deny the trinity because that verse is bracketed/omitted and is such a clear affirmation of the doctrine.

My brother, who currently comes from a more charismatic angle, is always quoting the ending to Mark because it speaks of tongues, casting out demons and healing the sick (always have to skip the snakes part).

If you look into textual criticism there is a lot of nuance to why certain verses are accepted and others are not. There are no black and white cases.

Frozen Fire wrote:That latter point is of great interest to me! As a pastor who preaches through whole books it makes me question if I should preach those texts but the woman caught in adultery is one of THE MOST often quoted passages in this day. How many of us, even from non-Christians, has heard "he who has no sin..."? Is it necessary? Not at all but would I skip over it? That's an interesting question. 

I preached through 1st John a few years ago and did not preach 1 John 5:7 within that particular passage, through I briefly touched on the "controversy." KJV-only folk tend to say all other versions deny the trinity because that verse is bracketed/omitted and is such a clear affirmation of the doctrine.

My brother, who currently comes from a more charismatic angle, is always quoting the ending to Mark because it speaks of tongues, casting out demons and healing the sick (always have to skip the snakes part).

If you look into textual criticism there is a lot of nuance to why certain verses are accepted and others are not. There are no black and white cases.

It IS interesting.  In seminary (at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville KY, considered quite conservative by most) I took a class in John.  When we came to the woman caught in adultery, whether or not we would preach the story was a somewhat major topic.  I was quite surprised when the professor (obviously informed, intelligent, and godly, and pastored a well respected church in town as well) told us that he would preach it, as in his view it would cause more confusion/doubt among his people to try to explain why he was "skipping" it than to just go with it.  Although I completely disagree (and make sure to stay away from even casually using terms like "throw the first stone"), I had and have full respect for the guy.  Personally, I would take it as an opportunity to talk about why it's bracketed off and how it points to how outstanding current scholarship is in being able to be remarkably confident that our translations are done from texts that are amazingly legit, and how learning about it has helped strengthen my belief in Scripture.  But though I maintain my disagreement, it's hard for me to be too tough on somebody who's been so much further down the road than I have.

I grew up on KJV but I prefer NIV or NLT. Just easier to read.