Since this website will have plenty of Biblical references in it, it makes sense to take a second to discuss Bible translations, and which ones I prefer to use. This is not meant to be the definitive authority on the subject of translating the Bible from its original languages, it is intended to give you, the reader, a little insight into the what’s and why’s I use specific translations of the Bible when studying and teaching.

Bible translations basically (remember: the operative word is basically, this is not a Biblical studies class!) come in three flavors: Formal Equivalence (word-for-word), Dynamic Equivalence (thought-by-though) and Formal and Dynamic Equivalence or Dynamic and Formal Equivalence (something-in-the-middle). What defines a Bible translation’s classification is what the translators were aiming to achieve with it. In the case of the NASB (click the translation name for abbreviation and other information), the translators wanted to stay as close as possible to the original language used in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts; therefor it falls in the Formal Equivalence category (e.g. they are attempting to translate word-for-word). Now look at the Message translation. Petersons’ aim was to make a translation simple enough for middle-school-level reading; ergo it falls into the Dynamic Equivalence category (he was aiming less for critical accuracy and more for thought-for-thought coherence). Finally, translations such as the NIV—and the more recent TNIV—strive to strike a balance between the two extremes, which birthed the Formal and Dynamic Equivalence or Dynamic and Formal Equivalence category (appropriately called somewhere-in-the-middle because it favors neither side). If you are interested in learning more about the process, Zondervan (one of the world’s largest Bible publishers) has a handy article that covers this subject.

With that all said now, let’s get back to the subject of what translations I personally use and why. I approach my studies from the perspective of each translation method offers something the others do not. The ESV produces wonderful poetic forms for the Psalms and the book of Job, but can sometimes sound a little kludgy in other areas. On the flip side of that coin, the NLT makes some passages in the New Testament very simple to understand, but can really butcher the nuances of Scripture by trying to be simple in its word choice. The same goes for somewhere-in-the-middle translations as well, they excel in some areas, whilst lagging in others.

So the bottom line is this: when I study the Bible, I use multiple translations. Just to make sure we’re clear, let me say that again, I use multiple translations of the Bible when I study, and I would suggest any student of the Bible to do likewise. The only way to truly understand the breadth and depth of the Bible is to read it in the original languages and understand the subtle cultural metaphors and colloquialisms of the times. Since these classical languages are not second nature to me, nor do I fully understand classical Jewish, Roman and Greek cultures as if I were there when it happened, I need to rely on the skills of the translators (and good commentaries, but that’s another subject). It makes the most sense, and quite simply, what’s wrong with taking a double dose of the Bible when reading it? That would be like saying ‘no’ to an extra shot in your latte or Americano!

If you’ve made it this far, you must really want to know my personal favorite Bible translations. To reward your perseverance, here you go:

Formal Equivalence: ESV and NASB

Dynamic Equivalence: NET

Somewhere-In-The-Middle: TNIV