New International Version *
Score: 90%
The New International Version, the best-selling version in the world today, is a dynamic equivalency version that is more formal than most other dynamic equivalency versions and hence somewhat more accurate, though still less accurate than most formal equivalency versions.
Zechariah 12:10 uses the indefinite article (a) rather than the definite article (the) in describing the Spirit of prayer and supplication. While I really don't like that, I haven't docked a point for it because the Hebrew doesn't force assuming the definite article, although it should be theologically obvious. Still, I must note that in my opinion the use of the indefinite article weakens the strong trinitarian doctrinal teaching in this verse.
The only serious flaw I found in the test was in Acts 2:38, where repentance and baptism are tied together as being necessary in tandem for the forgiveness of sins.
The NIV is not as bad as many versions, but is not as good as the cream of the crop; nor is its readability so much better than the more accurate versions that it should be considered. It is in the middle of the road in terms of translation theory (dynamic and formal), and it should not be surprising that it is middle of the road in quality as well.
New King James Version *
Score: 100%
I recommend the New King James Version above the King James Version because the language updating is necessary. Some of the words in the King James Version have even reversed meaning since its translation in 1611. In addition, we have learned things about the Hebrew and Greek languages in the time between 1611 and the present. This additional knowledge necessarily enhances the translation. Finally, where the NKJV and KJV differ, most frequently the NKJV is proven to be the more accurate version when compared against the original languages. Both the KJV and NKJV are translated from the Textus Receptus in the New Testament.
The NKJV is available in the form of some very good (and some not-so-good) study Bibles. For best results, I would recommend avoiding study Bibles, especially for new Christians, as this is a means of re-introducing the problem of man’s interpretations, to the detriment of even good translations.
New Living Translation *
Score: 60%
While not nearly as bad as the CEV and its ilk, the New Living Translation is still far wide of the mark required for a Bible version to be considered an accurate account of the word of God. The best thing I can say for the NLT is that, unlike the NIV, the problem appears to be an inability to accurately translate, rather than a deliberate modification of verses to suit a given theological viewpoint.
Like NIV, Zechariah 12:10 does not use the definite article with regard to the "spirit of prayer and supplication", but, although I hate that practice, I have not docked any points for that because the Hebrew text does not
force the use of the definite article, although it should be theologically obvious. In John 14:26, the New Living Translation completely misses the thought that the Father will send the Holy Spirit “in My name,” in the name of Jesus. At 2 Timothy 2:25, the NLT misses the representing the full meaning of “repent” in the passage. In Acts 2:38, baptism is represented as part of a causal relationship in the receiving of the Holy Spirit, a concept disproved later in Acts, in which Peter meets Gentiles who had received the Holy Spirit without being baptized, and subsequently baptizes them. Mark 1:15 contains too much interpretive gloss to be considered accurate. Although I agree with the interpretation, it goes beyond the text to supply it. This one is translated from the United Bible Societies text, which differs from Nestle-Aland in very few places.
New Revised Standard Version
Score: 50%
The New Revised Standard Version goes to prove that, just because a version is formal equivalency, does not automatically mean it is accurate.
The New Revised Standard Version has a problem in John 1:1-4, not in that it attempts to deny the trinity on this point, but in that it attempts to leave the door open for evolution through a twist in the translation and many inserted words not in the Greek text. In Zechariah 12:10, “on Me” has been replaced in the text by “the one,” although the correct translation is footnoted. In Genesis 1:2, the entire concept of the Holy Spirit is removed without justification in the Hebrew text. In Matthew 21:32, it completely skips the notion of repenting in terms of feeling sorry; the actual Greek text here is a lesser form of the word “repent” that means “felt sorry.” In Acts 2:38, NRSV supports baptismal regeneration by changing the word “for” to “so that.”
In Mark 1:4, the National Council of Churches shows its dislike of Baptists by translating “John the Baptist” as “John the baptizer,” which is pretty funny, since “baptizer” is not a word in the English language. It makes you wonder if Presbyterians and Methodists have “pianizers and organizers” playing in their worship services. We won’t dock them for using non-English words, but technically, if they really wanted to change it, they should have rendered it “immerser,” which is what the Greek word really means, though quite an alien concept to their theology.
The NRSV has been carefully crafted to be open to just about any doctrinal position, orthodox or not, matching the position of the churches that produced it.
New World Translation *
Score: 10%
Unless you are a cult researcher, you have no use for the New World Translation. I have read most if not all of the New World Translation in my former life as an unwitting unbeliever. Practically none of the essential truths of the Bible could ever be discovered from the New World Translation.
Supposedly translated from the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, in reality none of the four “translators” actually knew Biblical Greek (this was proven in court some years ago). The NWT is actually a doctrinally modified paraphrase, probably of the American Standard Version.
Only Acts 2:38 was translated accurately, and that is only because the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in baptismal regeneration. In Genesis 1:2, “Spirit” is translated “active force.” Neither word present in the text or implied by the meaning. Zechariah 12:10 substitutes “the one whom they pierced” instead of “on Me whom they pierced” to obscure the Trinity. Matthew 21:32 does not indicate a repentant change of mind, only regret. Mark 1:4 inserts an interpretation, not the word of God. Mark 1:15 presents the command to repent as a way of being, not as an action to take. Luke 24:45- 47 replaces “in His name” with “on the basis of his name,” obscuring the sense. John 1:1- 4 has a grammatically impossible rendering of “a god.” John 14:26 depersonalizes the Holy Spirit. Acts 13:48 dispenses with the concept of destiny which is present in the real text. 2 Timothy 2:25 is changed from an acknowledgment of the truth, and introduces a concept of “infavorable disposition” rather than “in opposition.” This is not to mention that the word “Jehovah” is inserted 237 times throughout the New Testament, though not one Greek NT manuscript contains the word.
If you have a copy of the NWT, please do not take this version to a used bookstore to get rid of it. Let its damage stop with you and take a stand against false doctrine by throwing it out yourself.
Today's English Version
Score: 30%
The TEV is an only slightly less heretical paraphrase than the Contemporary English Version, which more perfects the heresies espoused by the American and Canadian Bible Societies.
Zechariah 12:10 hides the Trinity by translating "on Me" as "at the one." Like the CEV, John 14:26 is worded to allow an impersonal view of the Holy Spirit. The full meaning of repentance is concealed in Mark 1:15, Matthew 21:32, and 2 Timothy 2:25, depicting repentance as only "turning from sins" and not "turning to God." Mark 1:4 and Acts 2:38 support baptismal regeneration. Only Genesis 1:2, John 1:1-4, and Luke 24:47-49 were actually translated properly. A person reading this trash is not reading the Bible, but is wasting his or her time.
World English Bible
Score: 100%
The World English Bible is quite easy to read and yet highly accurate to the original text. It is mainly formal equivalency but uses dynamic equivalency very sparingly and normally with a positive effect. The New Testament text in this case is the Byzantine Majority Text, which in my opinion at least is the best possible text upon which to base a translation of Scripture. A project of Rainbow Missions Inc., the text is copyright-free. Based on the Byzantine Majority Text, the WEB represents the best in both text and translation technique.
In Conclusion
I believe I have covered most of the main Bible versions in use today, along with all of the versions available with our Bible Search Utility software. Although I had already carefully evaluated all the versions we use in the BSU for accuracy, I was happy to see that all of them scored 100% in this rather stringent test.
These results show that the very best dynamic equivalency versions constitute at minimum a 10% loss in accuracy, while the average dynamic equivalency version seems to lose about 70-80%, like the TEV and CEV. You must understand the severity of this loss of accuracy. In the CEV, for example, only 1 in 5 verses would be truly accurate to the Word of God.
Therefore, I cannot in good conscience recommend any version that fell below 100% on this test. I will then make this recommendation. If you are really having a hard time understanding a formal equivalency Bible version, I strongly suggest you should try other formal equivalency versions before resorting to dynamic equivalency versions. For example, most people I know find the NKJV very understandable. I know some other people could not understand the NKJV, and switched to the NASB, which they find very understandable. The NASB handles English grammar differently than the NKJV, which attempts to retain a flow like the KJV. The switch from NKJV to NASB constitutes no real loss of accuracy compared to the switch from NKJV to one of the dynamic versions.
Since this article was originally written, the Holman Christian Standard Bible has been released and represents an easy to read alternative to both literal translations and dynamic equivalency in its optimal equivalency technique. While it ties with NIV with a 90% score, we feel it's a bit better than NIV and much better than the more dynamic versions.
I recognize it is very expensive to buy Bibles just to try them, but it is possible to sample most versions online for free using the
Bible Gateway.
If you cannot find any formal equivalency translation understandable, please purchase one anyway for comparison with any dynamic equivalency version you decide to use, and make no life-changing decisions unless the formal version firmly supports the dynamic version's interpretation.
