Choosing A Bible Version Series

Sixth, you can trust an essentially literal translation not to resolve all difficulties in interpretation. Dynamic equivalent translators will attempt to make a translation that is understandable to the reader. Therefore, they are committed to resolving difficulties in interpretation so that the reader is not left with that obligation. However, an essentially literal translation will pass that difficulty on to its readers. Why? Because the author passed the difficulty on to his readers. So, it is not improper for translators to pass that difficulty on to us. Frankly, I don’t want a translator deciding how to interpret a text for me. I want to wrestle with what the author wrote in the original and make that determination myself. Of course, since I have limited abilities, I need to rely on others to help me understand the meaning of the text. But I want to have the original text translated without interpretation. I remember years ago preaching on a difficult text. My entire argument hinged on what the original meant in Greek. The congregation listening to me simply had to take my word that I was correctly interpreting the Greek text myself because their dynamic equivalent translation was not clear on that point. I don’t want you to have to struggle like that. I want you to be like the Bereans who “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). My job is to explain the Bible to you, and your job is to check and make sure that I am explaining it correctly. And you can do that best when you have an essentially literal translation of the Bible.

And seventh, you can trust an essentially literal translation to preserve the literary qualities of the Bible. The original texts have wonderful literary qualities. When I read John in Greek, I can easily tell his beautiful and simple writing is different from Paul’s closely argued, theological treatises. Reading Isaiah in Hebrew shows one his artistic prose and poetry as compared to the tight narrative of Joshua. Essentially literal translations seek to preserve the literary qualities of the original, particularly as they are read. One of the reasons the King James Version was the Bible of choice for almost 400 years is because the beauty of the original was preserved in English. The best modern essentially literal translations will seek to do the same.

Conclusion

At this point, you may be wondering where I am going with this message on “Choosing a Bible Version.”

A few weeks ago I proposed to the Session that the Tampa Bay Presbyterian Church adopt an essentially literal translation, namely, the English Standard Version, as our preferred Bible.

Let me say again that the New International Version is an excellent Bible. It is the best of the dynamic equivalent translations. But, in my view, the English Standard Version is better, for the reasons I have just given. Earlier this week I mentioned to Dr. Johnston that I was going to preach on this topic. He asked if I was going to show some of the difficulties in the NIV. I said that I was not planning to do so. He immediately said, “That’s wise because we don’t want to undermine confidence in the NIV. The NIV is a good translation, but the ESV is better.”