Which Bible Version Should I Use? Today there exist over 70 versions of the Bible printed in English. These can be categorized into two primary classes: literal (so-called) and paraphrased. Of these two classes the literal version translations are far more the preferable, at least for any serious student of Elohim's Written Word. In addition, the literal category can be broken down into word-for-word (interlinear) and for certain versions a thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence). This latter sub-category actually spills over into some of the paraphrase versions which are more literal than others within the same sub-category. But for now we will address the two primary classes of literal and paraphrase. The paraphrased versions come in a wide variety of target audiences, and typically contain much liberty in translation and doctrinal biases. Their editorial claim is one of easier reading for the novice or one who has little background in the Bible, and thus tend to use the vernacular of today. This leads one further away from the original textural meaning, and opens the door for rampant editorial bias to be introduced. While at times a more culturally current rendition can be helpful in understanding a difficult passage, the slight advantage it may offer is too often overshadowed by the more preferable position of being equipped in the first place to grasp the text in its full and proper context; this being linguistically, textually, historically, culturally and literarily. No paraphrased version can ever begin to achieve this objective. Literal versions (so-called) tend to represent a more concerted effort to achieve an accurate translation, one more representative of the original writer's intended meaning, to the extent this is possible. Many factors enter into this objective and, while being a lofty goal, it is never achieved completely. Principal among the reasons for this is that language cannot be translated with 100% accuracy, and cultural idioms and other word plays simply do not translate. Thus, it is possible to translate from one language to another with about 95% accuracy, depending on the translator's knowledge of both the source and receiving languages involved. Beyond this, the remaining approximate 5% is dependent on the translator's grasp of the other contextual factors, principally history, culture, logic system and literary style between the two languages involved. These aspects are even more compounded when more than two languages are at play, which entails virtually all of the Bible's text when one considers that from the original writings to English the text has gone through from two to four translations. Thus, a literal version of the Bible, while definitely preferable over a paraphrased version, is in reality a misnomer. Nevertheless, a good literal translation will offer to the student a generally faithful effort to portray the intended meanings of the individual original authors. One will note that with the paraphrased versions there usually are few editors, sometimes only one. With the literal versions there often are numerous editors, often broken down into a minimum of one or more Old Testament and New Testament editors, plus a general editor. This is even further expanded in some versions to specific book editors or subject matter editors, plus the above complement as well. While this can be viewed either from a positive or negative viewpoint, depending on one's perspective, it is the opinion of this writer that an editorial board comprised of many scholars lending to the whole their composite areas of expertise, is more preferable than drawing on the decisions of one or a few editors. However, this is not to say that even considering a well-recognized literal translation, there cannot still be found editorial biases of questionable denominational or doctrinal origin. I am often asked which version of the Bible is the best one to use. My typical response is first, there is no perfect version available; and second, that's the wrong question to ask. Rather, we should be asking of all the versions available, which ones (plural) are preferable to have access to in our library? In other words, it is best to have several versions at hand for study and comparison. This can be achieved in hard copy book form, or through use of the variety of Bible software available today. For reasons stated above, I hesitate to recommend one specific Bible version to anyone. However, I will say that I do recommend that every serious Bible student carefully research and obtain a hardcopy literal translation in Study Bible format, even if one regularly uses one of the many Bible software versions on the market today, which I also highly recommend. The mainline Bible versions today can be purchased in Study Bible format. While certainly not perfect, these Bibles usually contain elaborate cross-referencing schemes, historical and explanatory footnotes, and other helpful aids in understanding the text. Mind you, these aids are in places laced with biases and doctrinal rabbit trails, but on the overall they provide useful information to assist the student. As one grows in his or her understanding of the Bible, you become increasingly adept at distinguishing between the study aids that are valid and those which contain syncretistic fallacies. This takes time, but is a sure measure of growth and equipping. Of huge importance is to have an adopted hard copy version of the Bible in which you are familiar and comfortable with. Why? Because Bibles were meant to be studied and written in, just like any text. In fact, the Torah in Hebrew means teaching or instruction, more correctly than Law, although it certainly contains Elohim's laws as well. And, the Torah is the foundation for the whole of the Biblical record. Thus, as we study we should be highlighting significant text or passages, underlining and making margin notes to ourselves for future reference. Our personal Bible then becomes our companion, going wherever we go, ready to be consulted on a moment's notice. There is an old axiom of telling importance: If your Bible is a mess, your life is probably not. Another is: Elohim does not desire that we read our Bibles (as though it were a novel). Rather, He longs for us to study His Written Word for understanding in how to live a redeemed life in covenant relationship with Him. Over time I have settled on what I call my litmus test for a good Bible version. It is not all conclusive by any means, but may provide you a guideline for selecting a version in which the editors have exhibited a reasonable fidelity toward textual accuracy. The test simply involves a comparative exercise on several carefully selected verses from both the Scriptures and Apostolic Scriptures, and how they have been rendered in any given version, as follows (first, we will provide the Apostolic Scriptural comparatives, then the Scriptural comparatives, explaining why below): 1. In Romans 10:4 many versions use the word u ...end of the law... " However, a more correct translation is to use the word goal or objective. This is a classic example of editorial bias, whereby the word end fits nicely with the antinomian theology so prevalently taught for centuries within Christendom. The proof of this, besides purely translational judgment, is to refer to Matthew 5:17 wherein Yeshua Himself tells us He came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill (i.e., correctly teach). 2. In Acts 18:20-21 Paul states from his time is Ephesus, when asked to remain longer, that "...I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem... " This quoted portion of verse 21 in many versions has been completely left out. Why? Once again editorial bias has crept into many versions to support the errant belief within Christendom that Paul was not an observant Jew. Paul himself disputes this belief in Romans 7:7, and 12. 3. In Revelation 22:14 the Apostle John shares with us that "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life ..." Many versions insert instead "… who wash their robes,..." Once again, this is an editorial maneuver to sidestep verbiage indicating the need to observe Elohim's commandments. 4. In Genesis 22:8 we read in most versions where Abraham's response to his son Isaac was "My son, Elohim will provide for Himself, the lamb for a burnt offering." Here the word for is not in the Hebrew text, and the reason is that this response from Abraham is a foreshadow of the true sacrifice in Messiah Yeshua, whom Isaac was simply a type and foreshadow of. In the Hebrew, it reads “... God will provide Himself the lamb for…” 5. In Deuteronomy 30:4 we read in many versions, "If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, ..." Here the words parts under have been added to the Hebrew text. This addition is indicative of the concept predominantly taught that "heaven" is somehow above us, up in the air where Elohim resides. Yet, we are told that the new Jerusalem and new heaven and earth will be here on earth (see Revelation 3:13, 21:1, and 2 Peter 3:13). 6. In Jeremiah 17:13 we read in most versions, "O Lord, the hope of Israel, All who forsake you shall be ashamed. Those who depart from Me, Shall be written in the earth because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters. " This verse actually provides us with two tests, one of translation and of one of cross-reference. In the first instance use of the word hope in most translations is actually mikvah in the Hebrew. The mikvah was, Biblically speaking, a complete water submersion signifying in the physical sense a spiritual cleansing for right standing before Elohim; in others words, a heart cleansing in submission to Elohim and His ways. Few will be the Bible versions which clearly reflect this intent in the English.In the second instance, written in the earth, this is very probably the verse Yeshua had in mind in the account of the woman accused of adultery and brought before Him by the Pharisees (see John 8:1-11). In response to the Pharisees, in both verse 6 and again in 8, He stooped down and wrote in the ground (earth). His reply in verse 7 was in accord with Torah. Importantly, the Pharisees here were without hope, if you will, because their hearts were not cleansed (mikvah'd) before Elohim, but rather bent on entrapping Yeshua into braking the Torah of Moses. The test here is this: rare will be the Bible version which through its cross-reference system connects Jeremiah 17:13 with the account in John 8:1-11, and conversely. In Daniel 8:14 we read in most versions, “ ...For two thousand three hundred days ...” In the Hebrew or Aramaic the word days actually reads evenings-mornings, signifying the two "Korban Tamid" daily sacrifices at the Temple - not implying 24 hour days, but 12 hour periods of time. What is missed in many translations is an absence of understanding the sacrificial system and, in this particular case, the fact that the Book of Daniel contains considerable material where Daniel prophesied of the coming desecration of the Temple in 168 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The text of Daniel in Chapter 8 tells us that after the acts of Antiochus in desecrating the Temple it was three years until the Maccabees could recapture and cleanse the Temple, thus reinstituting the daily sacrifices by 165 B.C. The 2,300 days of 24 hour periods does not fit a three year time span, but if the evening-morning scenario of 12 hour periods is applied it works quite closely to result in a 3 year period, thus fitting the textual statement of three years. Of course we read in the above chapter and elsewhere in the Book of Daniel of the impetus for the celebration that came to be known as Chanukkah. The accounts surrounding Chanukkah are historically also corroborated by the Jewish historian Josephus, and by the Apocryphal Book of 1 Maccabees. Dates and time frames in these sources are identical to the text of Daniel, thus supporting the evening-morning 12 hour period of 1,150 days, not the 24 hour periods of 2,300 days. The above seven-point litmus test for textual-historical translations is intended to serve as an aid in comparing differing translation versions of the Bible, and to help one select a version that has attempted to be faithful in terms of accurately portraying the original textual writings and their intended meanings. The reader must understand, however, that I know of no English version of the Bible which passes all of the above test examples. I would suggest that the reader place the heavier weight for selection of a Bible version on the first three Apostolic Scripture (Items 1-3, above) citations. The reason for this recommendation is that the preponderance of Scriptural corruptions were birthed in the era from the First Century, A.D. forward, at the time frame closely following the original Apostolic writings, and during the interim two to three hundred year period leading up to their canonization. It was in this period of history that much of the Church's doctrines and errant theologies were birthed, took root and began to be propagated forward. Unfortunately, considerable of these have been carried forward even to the present day, and appear in most translations of the Bible. Conversely, by this time in
history the Scriptures had been well established (being canonized by c. 150 B.C.) and therefore experienced relatively minor corruptions forward in time. The principal corruptions we see today in the Scriptural writings can be attributed more to translator errors in not contextually understanding the history, culture, and logic systems of the early writers; while those corruptions that surface in the Apostolic Scriptures are largely due to purposed denominational biases, and are therefore proportionally greater in occurrence. From the standpoint of textual criticism, the Apostolic Scriptures present far more complexities than the Tanakh or Scriptures. The reason for this is that in the Tanakh the greater corpus of manuscripts tended to simply involve single word differences, accentuation, vowel marking or spelling differences. In the Apostolic Scriptures whole families of manuscripts exhibited large and multiple variants that would extend to whole sections of books being excluded or appended. Moreover, the Apostolic Scriptures experienced extensive copying, often under less than mature scribal standards, when contrasted with the care taken in copying of the Tanakh or Scriptures. Finally, the reader is advised that if one carefully applies the above litmus tests, it should not be expected to find any more than half as positive results in either the Apostolic Scriptures or the Scriptures, for any given English version of the Bible. One of the greatest advantages of a Study Bible version is that while most of these may not contain the exact text to meet the test, often these versions will by textual convention or footnote indicate alternative translations, or at least that variations do exist from that which the translators have selected to use. Once again, where these alternative word or phrase choices are indicated, it serves as evidence that the editorial intent was at least somewhat transparent toward a faithful rendition of the source manuscript(s).
Comments