My Five Least Favorite Bible Translations

You asked for it, you got it. Here is a list of five mainline and evangelical English translations of the Bible that I don’t particularly like. I am not saying they are problematic, although I do have issues with a couple of them, but that they just aren’t favorites for me. Feel free to comment your thoughts.

[JosephAlanMeador]

“We don’t need a new angle—we need to take the Word of God to heart.” Agreed, and well spoken brother. We have an embarrassingly wide array of modern translations available to us. Many of them are quite good, but. What matters is that we get into His Word, and let it get into us.

[CanadianAnglican]

Always enjoy your videos. They help me so much in choosing what bibles to buy. Thank you my friend.

[BigStack-vgku]

New to your channel…I like your reviews of both Protestant and Catholic bibles…you don’t make fun of them…Thanks!

[paulnprimus]

I’m from the “camp” that should love TPT. But I’ve had to throw it across the room a number of times because it literally changes what the original text says to suit its doctrinal stance.

I appreciate The Message for the reason Eugene wrote it but definitely can’t use it as a “Bible”. More of a Eugene Commentary.

GREAT video Tim, thanks again!

[Manateesmile]

Amen! 🙏🏼 this was very interesting, the ‘84 NIV is what I used for over 20 years. I was never comfortable with the new 2011 NIV. Glad to have more information about the NRSV update. Thank you!

[Craigs_Cartoon_Capers]

Thanks for your clarification of the word/title Jehovah, been hearing different things. Agree with you on too many new translations, think it's all marketing. Been getting some older Bibles, and feel more drawn to them.Thanks for your honest reviews and insights, we really enjoy your channel. Kudos, too, to your camera woman!

[tracywilborn]

I still have my NIV 1984, and I am never getting rid of it. It was my primary bible for many years, and I still use it once in a while.

[ccchhhrrriiisss]

Thanks for this. I had never actually heard of the LSB (i.e., Legacy Study Bible) until I watched this video. I'm a big fan of the NASB (from which I learned that it is derived). In addition, my wife and I start each day reading through the Bible cover-to-cover (i.e., Genesis through Revelation). I read it aloud and she follows along with me. We often will discuss things before, during or after it too. Each day, we listen to different Bible teaching podcasts (e.g., Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Skip Heitzig, Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, etc.). It's been a fantastic foundation for our marriage! We don't have children (yet); however, if we are so blessed we want to continue this daily reading with them too.

After our sixth complete read-through of the Bible, I decided to use the Name of God in place of the "LORD" in the Old Testament. I was very concerned about doing this incorrectly. The Rabbis began refraining from doing this because of potentially using the Name in vain. However, the Name was used throughout the Old Testament -- by prophets, kings and others (even foreigners). So, I am confident that this was not a tradition held before the captivities of Assyria or Judah.

I'm more inclined to believe that it became a practice around the creation of the Septuagint -- as this was a translation for a Greek king. I suspect that the "Seventy" would have preferred not to use the Name as it would be read by a pagan king (and it would have been virtually impossible to translate from proto-Hebrew into Hellenistic Greek anyway. Any phonetic translation would have been viewed as potential "altering" the Name too -- as the Name is just four Hebrew letters.

Still, I feel that the most accepted pronunciation is accurate (i.e., "Yah-Weh"). The first syllable is the one that is most-accepted by scholars. This is because it appears in the NEW Testament -- phonetically -- in the inclusion of the word "Hallelujah" in the book of Revelation. Moreover, there are names of Old Testament individuals whose final syllables, in the Greek form, retained a "Yah" (or a "Yuh") pronunciation (e.g., Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.). The same is true of individuals like "Zechariah" (the father of John the Baptist). The added vowel is the Kamatz pronounced "ah."

There is scholarly debate over the use of the "u" at the end of some names (i.e., "Elijah" as "Eli-yahu"). Yet, those names also appear as "Eli-yah" too. I'm inclined to think that the "u" is indicative of a prepositional linkage ("of Yah, " "to Yah" or something similar) so that "Elijah" can be rendered either "eli-yah" or "eli-yah-u" with the latter noting a relation of the named human person.

With all of this in mind, I do believe that the importance of the Name is lost when it is replaced with either "LORD" or "Kyrios." The Name is not "Lord, " "Adonai" or "Kyrios." It's not just a proper name; It is THE proper Name. Although I understand the history behind the changes in the Hebrew and Greek forms, I do think that the Name is otherwise worth noting. I see the subsequent renditions (in spelling or pronunciation) as traditions from the Babylonian captivity (at the earliest) or, more likely, the creation of the Septuagint during Greek rule.

Consequently, over the last several read-throughs of the Bible, I have pronounced the Name as "Yahweh" each and every time that I find it in the Old Testament. It's not anything that I want to be dogmatic about. Rather, I just feel that the proper emphasis of the Name itself is lost when it is simply pronounced as "LORD, " "Adonai" or "Kyrios." When we read that "my people who are called by my Name" is read, we know that they are not called by a word used for other things. The Name is singular and cannot be substituted for any other word. It really does help convey that meaning (particularly when I read the Old Testament aloud with my wife following along).

That said: I agree with your view on Bible translations not really needing "updates" (which are often vernacular "overhauls"). I like the NASB (1995), ESV, NIV (particularly the 1978/1984 edition) and KJV. It's interesting that the NASB and NIV that I prefer are the original forms rather than the updates. At the same time, there are a few issues that I have with the ESV too -- particularly with a few questionable renderings or words and phrases.

In our Bible read-throughs, we have used the ESV, NASB, NASB 1995, NIV, NIV 1984 and KJV. Most of the time as we read, I often open up Bible Gateway, BlueLetterBible and other sources on my phone and read how certain "confusing" verses are worded elsewhere or in the Masoretic, Receptus, DSS and Septuagint texts.

[sandracoombs]

Wonderful video Pastor Tim. 😊Love this new stuff you’re doing. I agree with you on everything you said especially that the Bible speaks truth to culture and should not be amended to bow to trends in that culture. Kudos for the courage you showed re the NRSV UE as I’ve seen other reviewers buckle and say it’s ok. I’m holding tight to my NASB 95 and 77 and my NIV 84. And my NKJV. Would you consider doing some videos on why we have all these updates in the Anglosphere? English translations of the Bible are multiplying and I’m not sure why. Thanks again.

[Whatyoutakinbout]

I love how the lsb reads. It’s an upgrade to the nasb. 95.

[christinawynkoop]

I agree 100% about too many Bible translations. It's kind of getting out of hand. I love the KJV AND NKJV. NKJV is my number 1 used and read Bible. I own other versions but the NKJV I love so much and I believe it doesn't need an update. Thanks for your videos!

[jmakins]

👍🏻👍🏻 Another good one. Thanks for sharing!

[j.woodbury]

I have the ASV translation on my phone. I like to try different ones from time to time, as long as they're not too far "out there" if you know what I mean. I like the Douay Rheims translation, though it does have some weird spelling, like it spells Nebuchadnezzar "Nobochodanozzar" or something like that, and it calls the Book of Revelation "Apocalypse".

[Manateesmile]

I agree about too many english updates!! I remember when the HCSB updated their original version to using YAWEH for Lord. It didn’t go over too well and then( I think ) was replaced by the CSB.

[jahintx]

A "thumbs up" especially for your closing statement! I am sure I you've said all of this again and again, but I think that if the Word of God isn't changing us, translation becomes a non-issue.

[megalyon]

I agree with all except for the LSB, I am glad the LSB is around because it will preserve things if they decide to discontinue the NASB 95. I was sad when they removed the verses in the 2020 from the text in brackets, that made switching between KJV & NKJV and NASB seamless. So i'm glad LSB is around to preserve that old style and I think it reads really smooth. The hebrew term Yahweh for the divine name doesn't bug me. And I agree with you on the NIV, some of the translation choices change the meanings wayyy beyond the KJV/NKJV that i'm used to. Agree with you on new translations and updates, it's very overwhelming.

[emmettjenkins]

I say amen to having too many updates and too many translations. I do have a few translations, but it is really getting out of hand. Also I say amen to let the word transform us. Great video 😇😇😇😇

[Seaclock]

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean in your comments about the NIV. The Bible isn't a style manual with the aim of imposing a certain set of language conventions on the culture. Rather, the translation should accurately reflect the way the language is used in order to be understood properly. In modern English masculine language is not naturally understood to be inclusive or generic (pick your preferred term). I don't think anyone needs to infer a certain motive in the translators for trying to find a way to deal with that fact. Rather, I have no doubt they were acting in good faith and with integrity to produce an accurate translation.

I think that some people (not necessarily you, Tim) are reading backwards into the NIV concerns that were not really current when work on it began back in 2009. Our current cultural struggles over contorting language in incomprehensible ways wasn't the issue back then that it is now. I think there are people who don't see how fast things have changed and that what the NIV and other translations did (the CSB also uses so-called gender neutral language) was very different from what activists are doing now. I'm not going to blame Bible translators because of what has happened since the NIV was published.

As much as some may wish for it I see no hope for trying to convince the general public that masculine language is anything but masculine. I'm older than you but when I read "brothers" I think "men". If I were to tell you that two of my brothers are women you'd think I was nuts.😄 I'm not sure what's gained by trying to impose unnatural meanings on words.

[LBCBrandon]

Coming from a mainline, but more traditional mainline, perspective, I agree with what you’ve said. I’m so disappointed in the NRSVue, though I could see it coming a mile away. I haven’t read much from the LSB yet, though I have a copy. The Divine Name issue is what’s keeping me from it. I tried to use a passage from the OT in an adult Sunday School class I taught, and folks didn’t care for it.

As for the NIV, as much as I love it and as large as it looms in my faith journey, I wonder if it’s heading down the NRSV/ue route too.

Thank you for your comments at the end. We must be in the Word and let the Word change us!

[ThecrosseyedTexan]

So if you don't mind sharing what's your opinion on the JB Phillips New testament in modern English that was put out in the late '50s?