The Bible has something to say about every area of life. The subject of which English Bible version we should be using is an important issue. Since it is an important issue, you would think the Bible would have something to say about it. Guess what? It does.
Of course, you’re not going to find the names of common Bible versions in the text of Scripture. You won’t see “Thou shalt use such and such a version…” But you will find principles in Scripture that give us guidance in the area of choosing a Bible version. The two main questions to consider when choosing a Bible version are: 1) how is it translated? And, 2) which ancient manuscripts was that version translated from?
The first issue we are faced with when choosing a Bible version is how that version was translated. There are two main ways this is done. There is the “word for word” method, and the “thought for thought” method.
A translator who uses the word for word method will read the text of Scripture in the original language. They take the first word they read, and then translate that word into English. Then, they come to the next word, and translate that word into English, and so on. Because word for word translations are more accurate, they are often somewhat harder to read.
A thought for thought translator translates the Bible by reading portion of Scripture and then asking himself “What is the idea (or thought) contained in this verse?” He then writes down, in English, the thought or idea that he thinks is expressed in that verse. Thought for thought translations are easier to read, but aren’t as accurate.
In reality, there isn’t a purely word for word or thought for thought translation. But every translator will lean toward one method or the other.
So, which translation method does the Bible suggest to be the best? I would argue the word for word method. True, the Bible contains the “thoughts” of God, but those thoughts come to us in words. When God had something to say to His people, He inspired men to write down that message. God didn’t merely give those writers ideas, He gave them the words that He wanted them to say (Jer. 1:9; Rev. 22:18-19, etc.). So, the word for word method of translating would be more in line with what the Bible says about itself, because that method recognizes that every word which God inspired is important.
The second issue we must look at when choosing a Bible version is which ancient manuscripts that version was translated from. We have many old manuscripts of the Bible in the original languages (Hebrew & Greek). But there are some differences in some of these manuscripts. This can be a complicated issue, so I’ll be oversimplifying a bit.
Most of the debate over which manuscripts to use for the basis of our English versions is centered around certain groups of New Testament Greek manuscripts. Most of the more recent English Bible versions are translated from an older group of manuscripts that weren’t used by most Christians until more recent times. These manuscripts make up what’s known as the Modern Critical Text.
The other group of manuscripts that some of our Bibles are translated from is known as the Received Text. These manuscripts are younger, but have been in use by the church for a longer period of time. There also is another group of manuscripts known as the Majority Text. The Majority Text and the Received Text are fairly similar to one another, so I’ll mostly be comparing the Received Text and the Modern Critical Text.
Again, you won’t find the Bible telling us explicitly which ones are the better manuscripts, but it does give us guidance. So, if we were to use the Bible to build our view as to which group of manuscripts to translate from, which would it be?
The argument for the Modern Critical Text goes like this: because it is older and closer to the source, it is more accurate (again, I’m oversimplifying). With any other book, the more times it is copied, the more chance there is for mistakes to happen. It’s kind of like the game “Telephone”; the message gets changed as it is whispered from person to person. So, the argument goes, the older manuscripts will be closer to the source, and therefore, more accurate. While that sounds like a good argument, it’s not an argument based on the Bible.
God’s word is clear: the Bible is not just another book! God wants His people to have and know His word (Col. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:15; etc.). Furthermore, God will keep His word pure throughout the generations (Ps. 12:6-7). The manuscripts that have been in use by the church throughout the centuries would seem to be the ones that are approved by God. The manuscripts that were not in use throughout most of church history (The Modern Critical Text), would not be the ones that God providentially preserved for His people to use. Please note that I’m not saying that the church gets to determine which manuscripts are best; I’m only saying that the manuscripts which have been in use by the church are the ones that God has preserved for His people to use. The Received Text is the group of manuscripts that best fits the biblical principle that God will make sure His people will have His inerrant word throughout the generations.
So, which Bible versions would be the most in line with what the Bible teaches about itself? As far as modern versions go, the only one that would qualify is the New King James Version. The old King James (aka the Authorized Version) would fit these criteria as well. While I’m not a “KJV Onlyist,” it is probably the most accurate English version. The Geneva Bible (1599) is the one that the Pilgrims brought with them on the Mayflower, and that one would fit these criteria too.
God has taught me a lot through Bible versions that I now know are inferior translations. And if a person has trouble reading English, a lesser version might suffice for a time, though they should be encouraged to use a better translation if they can. Of course, if you want the most accurate version, learn Greek and Hebrew. Then you can read the Scriptures in the language that God inspired them to be written in.