My co-worker and I were discussing translations of the Bible a little bit a few days ago. I was saying how I am intrigued to discover that the publisher AMG has brought out a new printing of the old 1977 NASB. As you may be aware, the old NASB continued the practice of using archaic pronouns like “thee” and “thy” and so on when people are speaking to God, much as some people still do when they pray; and also uses the conjunction “and” very frequently at the beginning of sentences. I was actually considering buying a copy of that old NASB translation, partly because I would like to have one with those old pronouns and other translation practices, but also because I have heard it is actually more accurate than the new 1995 updated NASB for study purposes. It is an intriguing idea, but how many people actually would be interested in purchasing such an “outdated” translation?
My coworker said he thinks the fact that the Christian community does not have one translation actually divides us and keeps us apart. When you stop and think about it, that does make some sense. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all had just one Bible that we use; one translation that we would share? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all memorize the same verses, and they’d actually sound alike?
And that begs the question: which one?
The NIV has been the number one seller among Bibles for many years. How about that one? But you know the NIV has in recent years been saddled with that inclusive-language thing. So that may not be the best choice.
The ESV is very popular in some circles it’s a fine, older-type translation that many could be comfortable with. But some think its scholarship is lacking, and besides, it’s really just a warmed-over RSV, isn’t it?
The NRSV is the accepted unofficial “official” translation of the mainline churches and is the translation of academia. It would be a good choice, except…it was commissioned by those liberals in the National Council of Churches, and it’s really a rather muddy translation. And besides, isn’t the Common English Bible going to replace it soon?
The NLT is a nice, easy-to-read Bible, and it’s become popular among evangelicals…but isn’t it really more of a paraphrase than a “real” translation? And so it’s not really as “accurate” as it should be, right?
And what about the HCSB? That’s a good one, isn’t it?…except, it’s a Baptist Bible, isn’t it?
And the New American Bible is a Catholic Bible, so that one’s out; and the NASB is wooden and uses archaic English; and the NKJV and the KJV, well, we don’t even want to think about them, do we???
In all seriousness, you understand that what I have written in these last few paragraphs are false impressions people have about certain Bible translations. The reality is, in these, and in the numerous other English translations we have, there is a richness, a true treasure-trove of wisdom and the Word of God, much of which we might miss if we only had one English translation.
Perhaps God has actually blessed the English-speaking world with so many translations for a reason. Perhaps we should not be allowing the different translations to divide us into opposing camps, but instead we should be getting together, comparing the different translations, and learning from each other. We need to be letting the different translations bring us together, uniting us, not dividing us.
Is that something that could happen?
The Sundry Times 
I understand your point. At this time in my journey, I have decided to read the ESV for it’s link with tradition for my morning office and the NIV later in the day. Hopefully I’ll get the best of both worlds…
LikeLike
Chuck, I think the NIV and the ESV go well together. I am finding myself reading both of them, though not as regimented as that, i.e., not one in the a.m. and one in the p.m. I just go either by my mood or the Spirit’s leading. (And how do you tell the difference most of the time?)
LikeLike
I think more harm than good has come from the recent ‘translation wars’. I agree with you that the more we have, the better. I mainly read the NIV (since 1978 actually) but also use the NASB, ESV, and HCSB. none are perfect, but none are so bad (with the exception of NWT IMO) that they can’t be used. If you don’t read the original languages (I don’t) then you need to trust the translators.
LikeLike
Exactly, John, you have to trust the translators. And I believe that, for the most part, we can. It’s pretty rare for anyone to be led astray by any trusted modern translation. As you said, none are perfect. But some are better than others, in some ways, and for certain people.
LikeLike
Multiple English translation are indeed a blessing. I am currently reading through the NLT One Year Bible on my Kindle in the mornings. Outside of that I spend most of my time in the ESV referring to the TNIV, NIV2011, HCSB, NRSV and occasionally the NASB.
I don’t think the multiple translations are responsible for the translations wars. I think the translation wars come about when we elevate our preferences for translation philosophy at or above Biblical testimony and decide to defend those preferences to the death. Perhaps that was a little dramatic but you get the point.
LikeLike
Stan, you make a very good point, that it’s our own human failings (our flesh) that caused the “wars”, much like real wars.
LikeLike
I am not very amazed that AMG has reprinted the 1977 edition of the
NASB.I personally know people who have “abandoned” the ESV in favor
of the NASB-77. Most of the ones I know are in their early to mid 30’s
and the reasons they give for preferring the older NASB are as follows:
(1) they prefer a text that is more “literal” than the ESV, (2) They prefer
it over the ESV and the 95 Update because it retains the “connectives”
and other key words that enhance its use as a study bible. (3) They prefer
a bible available in more formats than are currently available with the ESV.
The AMG edition is giant print (dark 11 point font) handy size. VERY
hand friendly, with concordance, etc. (4)Their choices for comparative texts
with the NASB? The NIV-2011 and/or the HCSB.
LikeLike
Interesting, Ronnie. Interesting. Do you think there may be a growing movement back to the 1977 NASB?
LikeLike
Gary,
I honestly believe more people are moving back toward the NASB.
I do not believe it is just a reaction to the “gender” language debate.
I am hearing people say they are wanting a bible that enables them
to “study” the text in a more indepth manner. I think the AMG reissue
of the NASB is a sign of this. The thing that is most shocking to me
is the age of the group that seems to be gravitating to the NASB-77
…30’s! I believe the format that AMG published also shows a stroke
of genius. The very style ESV that many have requested Crossway
to publish, a large print, hand size edition is exactly what AMG used
in reissuing the NASB. As a result some have said a permanent
good-bye to the ESV.
It will be interesting to see if NASB sales jump over the next 6 mos.
or so, once people realize what AMG has done.
LikeLike
Ronnie, I find that comment strangely exciting. I think it’s because I’ve so rarely heard of people wanting a more accurate translation; it’s always that they want an easier-to-understand translation.
You have almost convinced me to purchase a 1977 NASB from AMG myself! I’m going to be curious now, as well, to see what happens in the near future with the NASB sales. (I wonder if they lump the 1977 sales in with the 1995 update sales.)
LikeLike
I have also heard many people state a preference for the more
idiomatic translations because they tend to be easier to read.
But, strangely, things seem to be changing, at least to some
extent. I know young people (30’s) who want an intelligible text,
yet they want one that is as close to the Hebrew and Greek
as possible.
I believe many people are returning to a time of bible study
and not merely bible reading. It will be interesting to monitor
bible sales over the next 6 mos. or so, in order to see if AMG
had found a niche. I personally believe they have!
LikeLike
I do think there is a growing interest in more literal translations, thanks in part to the ESV. I myself switched from the NIV to the NASB just a couple of years ago because I wanted a literal translation. After all, I do not know Hebrew or Greek, so I wanted to know that what I was reading was a close approximation of the original languages.
LikeLike
You got me mad there for a second until I realized you were joking about the stereotypes. Part of the reason I went with REB and GW are I want something different but expresses the Bible in a way that I can understand well and be impressed with, without being off track or having annoying features. I was so close to going with HSCB and NLT and in fact did for a few months (after the NRSV for 3 years and the NIV for 20). I still really like them both.
Your last paragraph and sentence are great. I’m glad we got away from picking apart translations like some of us did a few years ago. Learning from them with each other would be good.
Jeff
LikeLike
Sorry if I got you upset for a few moments there, Jeff. I think maybe I could have made my satire a little bit clearer. I appreciate your choices of the REB and GW. I really have very little experience with either.
LikeLike
“Sorry if I got you upset for a few moments there, Jeff. I think maybe I could have made my satire a little bit clearer.”
No problem. That’s what it’s for.
Jeff
LikeLike
I wonder if you have seen this fascinating little video:
http://pastorrobert-nikos.blogspot.com/2011/10/process-behind-your-bible-translation.html
LikeLike
Fascinating, Larry! Thanks for the link! I’m posting it in my sidebar; I think that’s something everyone who is interested in Bible translations should see.
LikeLike
Except they chose the wrong word! Half kidding. I think what that blogger has to say is good.
Jeff
LikeLike
Yeah, maybe it’s the wrong word. But like they said, it’s a tough one because Americans have a skewed view of the meaning of “slave”. Bond-servant or even just servant might be more accurate word for us, because our understanding of those words is closer to what “slave’ actually meant in that culture.
It’s a good example for us of how difficult it can be to translate the Bible into English. As you know, people just don’t understand that. They don’t understand that there often is no exact equivalence in English to a Greek or Hebrew word.
LikeLike
That is why I actually like the word “bondservant,” because it encompasses both of those concepts to some degree.
LikeLike
My reply sounded pretty arrogant. I meant it, but I’m not the arbiter of what makes a good blog post or anything.
I can’t imagine how difficult Bible translation is. Reading Mounce’s Greek For The Rest of Us was very illuminating.
Jeff
LikeLike
I didn’t think you sounded arrogant at all, Jeff, especially with the “half kidding” added on. You and I are not translators, so it almost seems silly for us to be talking about how a particular word is translated. But you and I both have spent time talking with and learning from people who ARE translators and linguists, and so I think we do have a little knowledge between us about what makes for good translation.
But also like you, I can’t hardly imagine the immense difficulty of Bible translation. I think it’s such a blessing, something that I don’t think we ever really think about, that we have teams of translators working together to give us the Word of God in English. That was one of the fascinating thing about that video for me, was hearing the translators interacting with each other.
LikeLike
Great video. I think it just goes to show how meticulous Bible translation is.
LikeLike
(Heh-heh, our discussion just keeps pushing your response farther down, Darren )
LikeLike
Thanks Gary (8:26 pm). I agree with everything. One good thing about a lot of translations is comparison. Laying out a passage of six of them can be very enlightening. Better than using Strong’s, which I’ve learned isn’t really much of a lexicon (dictionary) anyway.
Jeff
LikeLike
I think there is tremendous value in consulting various translations for in-depth study, even paraphrases. At the same time, I am really trying hard to just absorb one translation and become familiar enough with it that I can quote it from memory. I find that if read too many different ones, I have a hard time retaining anything. So I am not doing as much cross comparison as I have in the past.
LikeLike
I understand that. I’ve used so many different translations over the years that if I try and recite something from memory, it’s often a combination of different translations, or I find I’m just putting the verse into my own words. Sometimes I recite a verse from memory from way back in my early years, usually from the RSV or the KJV.
LikeLike
I’m the world’s worst paraphraser. I have to formally memorize or just look it up if I know where it is. Maybe that’s a good thing. I believe in word perfect memorization, which goes well with my perfectionism. I love it when correct things line up with my personality disorders (half joking).
Jeff
LikeLike
I read and memorized a ton in the NIV for 20 years, and keep it up (I’m about to have my daily coffee and review session), and I see the merit in what you say. But now that I’ve switched twice in the last 4 years, I do more comparison, and when I memorize, I give myself the freedom to use whatever translation has the easiest cadence and helps me understand and remember the passage the best. (Not my favorite rendition or apparent meaning, a la Rick Warren)
As far as reading through the whole Bible in the future and always using the same one (literally), I’m torn, but will probably stay with my primary.
Jeff
LikeLike
A lot of what I have memorized is also from the NIV, but that is slowly changing since I am using the NASB. And like Gary, I tend to just put verses together in my own words. I guess I could call it the DGV.
LikeLike
The title of this post sounds kind of like a rap song.
LikeLike
I wonder what Paul would think of that! 🙂 What I had in mind was those verses from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians: “4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
LikeLike
I think what started it is Randy Moss’s “One Clap” which I don’t understand. That’s not really rap, but then it morphed into it.
Nice Scriptural subject line.
Jeff
LikeLike