Introduction
This will not be your average discussion about Bible translations. First of all, I’m not an expert on the subject of Bible translations, so I won’t try to make you think I am. I’m also not a Greek or Hebrew scholar. Therefore, I can’t approach this subject from that perspective. However, I’ve done a lot of comparisons between all the major translations over many years, and have also done a lot of reading about translations on other websites. So I think I can provide some helpful information. Plus, I have a perspective about this subject that I believe may be helpful to the discussion. I’ll do this in the context of my own personal journey, where I share my history and personal viewpoints (rather than a scholarly comparison of Bible translations). Consider this as a supplement to any serious reading you might do about this subject elsewhere. I’ll also make some recommendations along the way, and wrap it up at the end of the article. But again, I’m not an expert, so these will be according to my own experience and research. Therefore, all in all I think you’ll find this a little different than anything you’ve read on this subject. At the very least, perhaps you’ll find this article somewhat interesting?
There are only certain translations that I would consider using regularly. Those are the ones I will talk about and recommend in this article. That’s not to say there aren’t other good translations. I know there are. But I like to stay in the mainstream of things, both in doctrine and in translations. I believe majority voices are important. It provides a certain amount of credibility and safety not normally found in minority voices. Being unique in doctrine and in Bible translation is a red flag, and should normally be avoided.
I’m naturally long-winded, so I apologize now for the length of this article. It’s just the way I’m wired.
Translations
YLT – (Young’s Literal Translation)
RV – (English Revised Version)
ASV – (1901 American Standard Version)
RASV – (Refreshed American Standard Version)
KJV – (King James Version)
NKJV – (New King James Version)
MEV – (Modern English Version)
NASB – (New American Standard Bible)
NRSV – (New Revised Standard Version)
LSB – (Legacy Standard Bible)
WEB – (World English Bible)
EHV – (Evangelical Heritage Version)
ESV – (English Standard Version
BSB – (Berean Standard Bible)
CSB – (Christian Standard Bible)
NIV – (New International Version)
NET – (New English Translation)
EXB – (Expanded Bible)
RSV – (Revised Standard Version)
NLT – (New Living Translation)
GW – (God’s Word Translation)
NCV – (New Century Version)
NAB – (New American Bible)
LV – (Living Bible)
GNT – (Good News Translation)
ISV – (International Standard Version)
Phillips – (J.B. Phillips New Testament)
The Voice
The Message
I first want to provide you with a little information about Bible translations in general. There are basically four types of translations or approaches to translating the Scriptures:
Formal Equivalence – This is the word for word type, the more literal rendering of the original writings. The goal here is to translate each word into English as much as possible, without providing meaning or interpretation. The translators stay in the proper word order unless it doesn’t make sense to do so, which is a regular occurrence.
Examples of: YLT, RV, ASV (also RASV), NASB (1995), LSB, LEB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, MEV.
Functional Equivalence (Dynamic Equivalence) – This is the thought for thought type, where the goal of the translators is to convey the meaning of the text. The idea is to make the Scriptures more understandable and more readable, to provide an awareness of what the writers meant by what they said in the use of their words, and how the original audience would have understood it—which isn’t exactly the same as interpretation, which involves explanation (teaching).
Examples of: NIV, NET, GW, NCV, NAB.
Optimal Equivalence – This type of translation seeks a balance between Formal and Functional Equivalence. Here the translators use a more “word for word” when it’s understandable the way it is, but provide a more “thought for thought” when the more literal rendering wouldn’t be clear to the reader. I personally find this to be very helpful. You get the best of both worlds. I love balance in all things, and this is no exception.
Examples of: CSB, NASB (2020), BSB, EHV, NRSV.
Note: It’s difficult placing some translations in one particular category. Even translators say that “every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication. So there’s definitely some overlap with many translations. I think the ESV and the NRSV come very close to this category.
Paraphrase – This is a loose and free-flowing rephrasing of the Scriptures, where there’s basically no actual ‘word for word’ translating, but where the goal is to provide meaning and interpretation, and written in a very inventive and flowery manner.
Examples of: The Message, The Voice, LB, GNT, ISV, Phillips.
In addition: Borderline Functional/Paraphrase – NLT.
I didn’t really know which category to put the NLT in, because it really doesn’t belong in any of the three groups—even though it’s regarded as a Functional Equivalence translation. However, I disagree. I think it’s a little too loose to fit in that category. Yet, it’s not so drastic to be a paraphrase either. It’s borderline between the two.
Throughout history – until recent years – the primary way of translating the Scriptures has been more word for word (Formal Equivalence). While the Good News For Modern Man was the first major paraphrase to break that mold (followed by the Living Bible), the NIV was the first major translation of the thought for thought type (Functional Equivalence). Since then, many translations are now in the more ‘Functional’ category. As you’ll see in my “Bible journey,” I grew up in the Formal Equivalence era. When the NIV came out, it created a serious stir. I remember it well. It wasn’t received well by much of the Christian community at that time, believing it was too loose by those who believed the Scriptures should be translated “word for word.”
However, what needs to be understood is that all translations provide some meaning and interpretation. The original languages don’t allow translators to do otherwise. To do so simply wouldn’t make any sense in the English language. Adjustments are required—which involves restructuring of word order, meaning and interpretation. There’s no way around it. Even the most literal translations require at least some of this. That applies even to the KJV, for all you KJ-only types. Also, literally speaking, there’s no such thing as a literal, word for word translation. Again, the original languages of the Bible don’t allow that kind of transition into the English language.
Therefore, when we place translations in the above categories, it simply represents the translations that fit those categories the best. As I mentioned, some translations are borderline, where there’s a lot of overlap. For example, as you can see above, I put the NLT in the Functional/Paraphrase category. It’s not quite either. It’s not quite a paraphrase like the Living Bible (from which it was based), but it’s also not quite as Functional as the NIV.
Throughout my life I’ve always favored Formal Equivalence translations. However, over the past few years as I’ve been reading and learning about translations, I’ve come to appreciate the value of the thought for thought translations—particularly the NIV and the NET. I now believe it’s important to present the same meaning of the text as the original audience would have understood it—to the best of the translator’s ability to do so. In other words, being as literal as possible without sacrificing the intended meaning of the original language.
Therefore, the translations I believe provide the best balance and understanding are:
The CSB, the ESV, the 2020 NASB, the BSB, the NIV, the EHV, and the NET w/Notes—not in any particular order, although I would probably put the CSB at the top of the list.
You can’t go wrong with any of those translations. I believe these translations represent faithfulness to the original writings in both translation and meaning. Accordingly, I believe these translations are perhaps the most helpful of all translations for most Christians. However, at the same time I believe it helps to keep things in check by comparing them with the most literal translations like the LSB, the NASB-1995, and the RASV (ASV without archaic language). Keep in mind, this is my own opinion based on my own reading and comparing of translations. As indicated, I still have a high regard for the more word for word translations—like the LSB, ASV/RASV, NASB, and the NKJV. However, my respect for thought for thought translations, has grown much in recent years.
Everyone wants to know which translations are the most accurate. Well, that depends on how we define “accurate.” Those who favor Formal Equivalence translations, believe those are the most accurate because they are more word for word, with less interpretation and meaning added to it. On the other hand, those who favor Functional Equivalence translations, believe those are the most accurate because they provide the best sense of the Scriptures, which they believe provide a better understanding, and therefore, more useful to the average Christian. Then there are those who believe Optimal Equivalence is the most accurate, because of the balance between the two methods of translations. I favor optimal equivalence. I seek the balance in nearly everything.
I also think the NET Bible with the Translator’s Notes is extremely useful—not so much because of the translation itself, but because the translator’s notes are so very valuable. The notes allow the average Christian to see why they chose the renderings they did in their translation. They give you alternate renderings, including the literal reading. The translator’s notes place the NET in a category by itself. Even though the translation itself is a bit too loose and interpretive at times, overall it’s a fairly good translation that’s also very understandable. In spite of some of its shortcomings, I like the way it reads in the NT, but not so much for the OT. My main point here is that it’s a good practice to use the NET Notes while using your preferred translation. I’ve done that for several years, and my understanding has grown much because of it.
The bottom line is, there are no perfect translations—no matter which category they fall in. They all have certain inadequacies. The best we can do is choose a translation that we trust and consider to be the most helpful to us personally — based on our viewpoint about translation methods — without criticizing others for their choice. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t translations we shouldn’t avoid—such as The Message, which I will talk more about at the end of this article. I’ll let you know now, I’m against paraphrases. I have no problem saying that they exceed the limits of proper translation principles. The Functional Equivalent translations work just fine. There’s no responsible justification for going beyond that. To do so is an abuse of God’s Holy Word.
My Journey
I know I’m dating myself, but in my younger years (1970s) the KJV was the primary translation among Christians. My first Bible was a New Testament, which I think was the KJV. My first complete Bible as a kid was a pew Bible that I got from our church (given to me), which was the KJV. After that, I acquired the Living Bible in high school. The first true translation I ever bought after high school was a King James Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible (great study Bible, by the way). The KJV really didn’t have much competition in those days, except for the NASB (1971, 1st edition).
Also being used at that time was the RSV, the RV (my parents had this one), and the 1901 ASV—which was the American version of the RV. And that was really it. I think by that time (mid 70s) those three (RSV, RV, ASV) were well on their way out because of the arrival of the NASB, which was designed to replace all three of them. Both the NASB and the RSV were based on the ASV, which was based on the RV. I stayed with the KJV for two or three years before I went to the NASB-1971. I stayed with the NASB for several years before becoming a King James-only follower for several years. After some research (I’ve done much more since then) and finding the KJ-only arguments unconvincing, I went to the NKJV and stayed with that for about ten years. Going from the KJV to the NKJV was like a breath of fresh air. It brought new life to my Bible reading and study. I loved it. I was a KJ-only when the NKJV first came out, so I didn’t make the switch until a few years after the NKJV was made available.
I would like to veer a little here and address the King James only position, which is a significant part of my Bible translation journey. Much of the KJ-only position is based on faith, rather than on sound scholarship and sound reasoning. In other words, it’s largely a faith-driven position on the Scriptures, and promoted primarily by legalistic, fundamental, separatist Baptists (Independent, Fundamental Baptists – IFB), which I was a part of for about ten years. They believe that God has continuously preserved His Word in a line of ancient manuscripts and translations that led to the King James Version—and stopped with that translation. In their view, according to the providential plan of God the Scriptures were always headed toward the KJV as the ultimate goal. Nothing beyond that. The question must be asked: why did the translation line have to stop with the King James Version? Why didn’t it stop with the Geneva Bible, for example? The Geneva was the translation of the day while the KJV was being worked on. It was highly regarded by scholars and widely used by the average Christian—so much so that when the KJV came out (officially known as The Authorized Version), the KJV wasn’t selling well because of the lack of acceptance by the Christian community. It wasn’t until King James himself banned the printing of the Geneva Bible that the KJV started to advance. Yet, it was the Geneva Bible that first made it to the shores of America—and I would like to point out that that too was according to the providential plan of God. The KJ-only position simply makes no sense.
Regarding the ancient manuscripts that differ from the KJV line of manuscripts, the KJ-only loyalists naturally assume they must be corrupt. Therefore, they assume all Bible translations that come from those manuscripts are also corrupt (they even believe the NKJV is corrupt!). However, the differences aren’t that significant. Furthermore, one should be able to see the providence of God in all this. Ironically, as I already indicated, it’s the providence of God that KJ-only loyalists cling to. However, the same providence of God that led to the KJV and which God has used for His glory, has led to other translations that God has also used for His glory, which came through different manuscripts (Critical Text). This began with the English Revised Version (RV) of 1885, which has led to all the top translations that we have today, except for the NKJV.
Either God has control over His own Word or He doesn’t. We know that He does. Therefore, we should acknowledge the providence of God in preserving both lines of ancient manuscripts and translations, because He has used both in His Church, and through His Church to spread His message around the world. People are getting saved and Christians are growing in their faith through both translation sources. Is God not sovereign over these things? Of course He is!
Don’t misunderstand, the KJV is a good translation, but it should not be regarded as the only translation that is true to the original writings. There’s simply no justification for that.
I wasn’t planning on taking this detour about the KJ-only position, but it naturally introduced itself as part of my journey.
From the NKJV I went to the ESV. I bought this translation when it was hot off the press in 2001. I must have been one of the first to purchase that Bible. I love the ESV and used it as my primary translation for about 18 years until a few years ago when I began reading other translations.
The ESV is beautifully written and has a wonderful flow. The language has a traditional sound to it. It’s one of the most accurate translations there is of the prominently Formal type. I’ve had so many ESV Bibles it’s ridiculous. I’ve given away many ESV bibles as gifts. I was sold on it for a very long time, and that still hasn’t changed much. But it’s always good to read fresh translations now and then, because it gives you a slightly different perspective.
During all those years, I vacillated a bit between the KJV, NASB, NKJV, the ESV and the ASV. But those occasions never lasted long. I always returned to the primary translation that I was using at the time, which was mostly the ESV.
As I already indicated, a translation I’ve used a lot over the past few years is the NET Bible. I find it to be very helpful for studying the Bible—not only in the way it’s written, but primarily because of the NET Translator’s Notes. While I believe the NET to be a fairly sound translation by itself (overall), I recommend using it with the Notes, because it tends to be too novel and interpretive in places—more so in the OT. On the other hand, there are places where the NET appears to be more precisely accurate than other major translations (esp. in the NT)—and the Notes normally explain why. So it tends to balance out pretty well. All in all I think it’s a decent translation to use, as long as it’s used in conjunction with the Notes. It’s very readable, and very understandable. Where the translation seems too strange (novel, esp. in the OT), the Notes always give you the more literal rendering and explain their reasoning for their translation—even though I often disagree with how they leave it in their translation. They also often provide the rendering of other translations.
I find the NET w/Notes so helpful, that I used it as my primary Bible for about five years or so, and my understanding of God’s Word grew a lot. There’s nothing like it. However, when we’re talking purely about translations, I favor other top teir translations like the CSB, LSB, BSB, ESV, the the NIV.
Another plus on the NET’s side, is their copyright policy. They’re very generous in the use of their translation—so much better than all other modern translations, except for the BSB and the WEB. This is the main reason I use them so much on my website (especially the BSB and the NET). Plus, I like to honor those who honor God’s Word above financial profit. Speaking of which, the BSB and the WEB (an update of the ASV) both have a totally free-use policy (Public Domain), which again, is why I use both on my website. Although, since the BSB has come out, I no longer use the WEB. While the WEB is a good translation, you should know that it was updated by one person, so readers still need to be careful.
Other Translations
I want to talk more about the BSB (Berean Standard Bible). This is a recent translation, which has been put into the Public Domain, emphasizing ministry over financial gain. You really have to respect that. I would place this translation among the best translations. For accuracy, readability, and clarity, the BSB is about as good as it gets. I have considered using it as my primary Bible. As I already talked about, a plus on the side of the BSB is their belief that Christians should be able to use it with total freedom, without any legalities involved where permission would be required to use it for writing projects. Instead, they allow people to use it for whatever purposes they may have for it. I share their philosophy, which is why I started using it on this website and as a translation I routinely consult for comparison. I personaly don’t believe God’s Word should be copyrighted, except to protect the text from being changed under the name of the translation. But that’s the only reason.
As I mentioned before, the BSB is in the Optimal Equivalence category, where there’s a good balance between the Formal and Functional types of translations. After all the comparing I’ve done with it, I see a mixture of the ESV, the NIV, the LSB and the CSB. You can tell that the BSB translators followed those translations very closely. While the CSB is known for being in the Optimal Equivalence category (as they advertise), the BSB perhaps a smoother read than the CSB, and sounds more traditional. One of the primary differences between the BSB and the NIV/CSB is that the NIV/CSB use gender-accurate terminology where both male and female are in view within the text. The BSB follows tradition and uses male terminology when given in the oringinal languages, which is something it shares with the LSB and the ESV.
Another thing I really like about the BSB is that it follows the NKJV, the NASB, and the LSB in using capitalization for references to God (He, His, Him, Me, etc.). I’ve always found this to be very helpful. I also like that the BSB uses “LORD” for YHWH in the OT, instead of “Yahweh,” which some translations use today, like the LSB. I find the use of Yahweh cumbersome when reading the Psalms, where we see it in abundance. It’s a bit jarring. The traditional use of “LORD” is not only easier to read, I agree with that practice, since the New Testament writers did the same thing when quoting the Old Testament, where the writers were being led by the Holy Spirit to do so. What better reason would there be to justify not using Yahweh? Especially since scholars aren’t even sure if that’s actually the correct pronunciation. It’s as scholarly guess, at best.
Note: I’ve written an article titled “The Use of Yahweh in Bible Translations.” I encourage you to read that article where I give sound reasons for not using “Yahweh” for YHWH, and why I support the trandtional use of “LORD” instead.
Next, I want to talk about the EHV (Evangelical Heritage Version). I just recently discovered this one, and as I’ve been reading it and comparing it, I must say, this is a wonderful translation, but it’s not well known—except to Lutherans, which seems to be their standard translation. I would put the EHV up there among the top translations. It has the same smoothness of the NIV. The EHV was produced “by pastors, professors, and teachers from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS),” which is a very conservative denomination in both doctrine and in social matters. They accept the Bible as “the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God.” Therefore, it should be noted that they didn’t produce this translation to be Lutheran, but for all believers in Christ. The primary guideline they used in translation was balance—balance in the classes of manuscripts (Textus Receptus, Majority, Alexandrian/Critical Text) and between formal and functional methods of translation (word for word vs. thought for thought). Another translation decision they made was not to allow interpretation to enter the process, as a general guideline and goal (all translations are necessarily interpretive to some degree), but only to convey the sense of the original languages. All this has resulted in a very accurate and smooth translation.
Two translations I had high hopes for are the CSB and one of the two recent updates of the NASB—which is the NASB-2020 (the other is the LSB). I thought perhaps I would like one of them (CSB, NASB-2020) well enough that I could start using it as my primary Bible. I was not wrong. At first I was disappointed, but after using them and comparing them with other translations, I find that I like them both quite a lot, especially the CSB. They both have great balance between Formal and Functional Equivalence. Also, they both use gender-accurate terminology, which I think is helpful for most Christians. I actually didn’t like the CSB very much when I first started reading it, but the more I read it the more it grew on me. At first I thought it read too choppy, but I discovered that the short sentences are helpful and to the point—not too wordy. I also believe it to be a highly accurate translation, right up there among the top translations. I think the CSB is a great choice. After comparing it to other translations over and over the past few years, I believe the CSB gets it right in most places, especially in some of the most important places. I like respect this translation so much that I decided to make it my primary Bible. Every time I start rethinking it, I always come back to it for all the same reasons.
The revision and oversight committee of the CSB is co-chaired by Dr. Tom Schreiner and Dr. David Allen. I happen to have great respect and admiration for Dr. Schreiner, and therefore, knowing that he had oversight of this translation gives me great confidence in the trustworthiness of the CSB. That’s a huge plus for me.
I would like to talk a little more about NASB-2020. It’s a very good translation, because it does follow the NASB-1995 fairly closely. However, I think it’s a much smoother read than the 1995. I have a special connection with the NASB, dating back to the 1971 translation, so I’m particularly drawn to the NASB translations, which includes the LSB. I’ve been feeling a little nostalgic lately, wanting to get back to some of the old paths (Jer 6:16). The LSB in particular, is a draw for me.
After reading about the 2020 version of the NASB, and after a lot of comparing, I find that it has good balance of word for word accuracy, readability and understanding. It’s a translation that can be trusted overall. However, I would rate the the LSB considerably higher than the 2020 version. The 2020 is the only gender-accurate (where both male and female are in view) version in the NASB line, which I support. If it aids in understanding – and it certainly does – then it makes perfect sense to translate it as such. Therefore, I don’t understand why so many Christians have such a huge problem with gender-accurate translations.
Now I want to highlight the 1901 ASV—which again is what the NASB is based on. It’s a slight and improved revision of the English Revised Version (RV). While I think it’s a little difficult to read because of the archaic language (I think it’s still easier to read than the KJV), I love this translation. It’s commonly regarded as one of the most accurate translations ever produced. So this is certainly a translation you can trust. The ASV was held in high regard for quite awhile, especially among scholars, and was once widely used in seminaries.
This brings me to the RASV (the Refreshed American Standard Version). I just recently discovered this one and now have it on my Kindle. It’s the ASV exactly, except they removed the archaic language. That’s the only updating they did with it. That’s why they call it the “Refreshed American Standard Version.” So I would actually recommend it over the ASV, since it’s the same translation, except much easier to read and understand. I like the history of the ASV, and the historic feel it has, much like the KJV. And now, the RASV makes it a much more readable translation.
In general, the ASV (or the RASV) seems to be more accurate than the 1995 NASB. From my point of view, the NASB made too many changes to an already superb translation. I say that because in a very large number of places in the NASB footnotes, it gives the literal Greek or Hebrew rendering, which is often the way the ASV has it. At least in most cases, I have to wonder why they didn’t go with the literal rendering when it seems perfectly acceptable as it is.
Anyway, if you like the old English style, then the ASV is a great choice. But again, because of the archaic language and difficulty of reading, it will present a challenge. In that case, the RASV is a great option (it would be an even more attractive choice if it was in the public domain like the ASV is). But that’s up to you. Some may like the challenge, while others will have a hard time with it. If you’re already used to reading the KJV, the ASV will not pose a problem. But regardless, I think the ASV or the RASV is a translation that everyone can benefit from by at least using it for comparison. The only real issue I have with the ASV is that it uses “Jehovah” for God’s personal or covenant name (YHWH) in the Old Testament.
Another reason I like the ASV is because it’s in the Public Domain, which means I don’t have to get permission to use it on my website no matter how many verses I use. I used to use it a lot. In fact, I used it for my verse by verse commentary on Revelation. If I had used the NASB or most other modern translations, I would have needed their permission.
I think one of the best written translations ever produced is the NKJV. But I can say the same thing about the ESV. They’re actually quite similar. When you read them side by side, they sound much alike, because the wording is much alike—often using exact wording. That could explain why I used both of these translations for so many years. Not only are they both beautiful, high quality translations that flow well, they also sound alike. I think they have an unsurpassed combination of understandable literalness, accuracy and elegance. Whenever I read either of them, they just feel right. Nevertheless, the NKJV can often be a little difficult to understand in places because of its literal wording.
While the NKJV is a great translation, it does have one significant drawback (in my opinion): it’s based on the Textus Receptus for the NT (because that’s what the KJV is based on)—as opposed to the Critical Text that most modern translations are based on (ASV, NASB, ESV, BSB, NRSV, LSB, LEB, CSB, NIV, NET, etc.). Therefore, I believe the ESV is more true to the original writings than the NKJV. However, the NKJV generally provides the differences between the two groups (as well as the Majority Text) of manuscripts in the footnotes, which is helpful. But when you add up the number of differences, it’s actually quite a lot—although mostly insignificant (but a few are). That said, I would choose the NKJV over the KJV, because not only does it read a lot better, it also corrects the inaccuracies of the KJV. If you’re currently using the NKJV, but have come to the same conclusion I did many years ago that the manuscripts used for the NKJV are a little less accurate to the originals, then I would recommend the ESV. I think there will be a familiarity about it that you’ll appreciate, and thus making it an easy transition. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I think that’s why I was so comfortable with the ESV when I made the transition from the NKJV.
I would also like to include the MEV in the discussion regarding the NKJV. It’s a fairly recent update of the KJV (2014). It’s a literal, word for word translation that reads very well and is very similar to the NKJV.
The NRSV came out in 1989, and is a good translation (Formal Equivalence) that has wide acceptance across denominational lines, especially among scholars. However, since it was published by the liberal National Council of Churches (NCOC), many Christians won’t even consider using it. But from my point of view, I think that’s an unwarranted position to take, because I don’t believe the association with the NCOC has any bearing on how well it was translated. Published by is not the same thing as translated by. It’s a very trusted translation and used by many.
We now come to the latest update of the NASB line of translations, and that’s the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)—which has just recently been introduced to the public. This is an update of the NASB-1995 translation by John MacArthur and his seminary (The Master’s Seminary). It’s a wonderful combination of literal accuracy and readability. I find it to be a smoother read than the 1995 version. While I’m not crazy about MacArthur’s dispensational theology (as you can probably tell, if you’ve done any reading on this website about it), I’ve always respected him for his high regard for God’s Word. If there’s one thing about John MacArthur I’m sure of, it’s that when it comes to God’s Word, he’s very serious about it and wants to get it right. He wouldn’t associate his name with an inferior translation. And if he believes this is a highly accurate translation, then I’m confident that it is. For starters, the NASB is already considered to be one of the most accurate English translations ever produced. So if his objective was to make a good translation even better, then I believe he and the translators succeeded in doing that.
Is the LSB the most “true-to-the-original” writings of any English translation to date? I don’t know, but it actually may be. Based on all the information I’ve gathered, as well as all the reading and comparing with other translations I’ve done, I do think the LSB may be a cut above most other translations (but not as readable as others). But this is really a discussion for the experts. Many reviews of the LSB are sure to follow, so we’ll see what they all have to say. But we can be confident that it’s among the most trustworthy translations available. Therefore, I have the highest regard for the LSB translation.
However, as I’ve already indicated, I’m not in agreement with using “Yahweh” for the Hebrew “YHWH” in the OT. I prefer a translation that uses the traditional “LORD” in the OT, which is what the other NASB translations use. If the LSB had followed the NASB tradition, it may have been the front-runner to be used as my primary Bible. But I’m still not counting it completely out as a possibility in the future. Because again, for me it’s a matter of trust. If I ever do switch to the LSB, when I see Yahweh, I’ll see it as YHWH, and say “the LORD” in my mind when I come to it. This has always been my practice when reading those types of translations anyway. It’s also much easier to read it that way too, especially in the Psalms where you find it so often. I again encourage you to read my article titled “The Use of Yahweh in Bible Translations.”
While the LSB doesn’t use gender-accurate terminology, I can work with that since I’ve read those types of translations for most of my Christian life.
Final Thoughts
While there are many positives of having numerous good translations to choose from, I’ve grown weary with the constant outpouring of new translations. I mean, where does it stop? At what point does it become enough? At what point have we reached the height of accuracy and readability? I believe a lot of these new translations are money-motivated, or someone or some organization is trying to make a name for themselves by being distinctly responsible for or associated with a particular translation. The truth is, unless a collection of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament are discovered that prove to be closer to the originals, we would be in very good shape with the translations we currently have if no other translations are ever produced before the Lord’s return.
We live in a time when we always want the latest and best of everything, and it’s no different with Bible translations. In 1560, the Geneva Bible was the latest and greatest. In 1611, the KJV was the latest and greatest. In 1885, the RV was the latest and greatest. In 1901, it was the ASV. In 1971, it was the NASB. In 1978, it was the NIV. In 1982, it was the NKJV. In 1995, it was the new version of the NASB. In 2001, it was the ESV. Today in 2025, it’s the CSB or the LSB. All these translations are supposed to be the latest and best translations because they’re based on “new information” and “better understanding of the original language” or “changes in the English language.” Or whatever.
So after 2000 years we still may not have it right?! Seriously? I have to agree with the KJ-only loyalists, that so many translations are unnecessary and have brought confusion—and I’m referring primarily to the abundance of poor quality “translations.” I say enough is enough! Let’s be thankful for the few solid translations we have today and focus on those.
Since the LSB is an update of the NASB-1995, it’s not a completely new translation. There’s probably always room for improvements. It’s the completely new translations that I’m most concerned about. The LSB may be the translation where we finally say, “we’ve come to the end of our journey.” I mean, except for the occasional fine-tuning, how much better can a translation be at this point?
I think if another new translation comes out that claims to be the most accurate translation, I’ll probably roll my eyes and shake my head. I’ll probably take a look at it, but with a lot of skepticism. Unless it’s based on an amazing discovery of ancient manuscripts, where scholars across the board have verified it and are raving about it, how will any new translation contribute to or improve the top tier translations we already have?
As much as I recognize the value and appreciate all the popular top-tier translations such as the LSB, the NASB, the BSB, the ESV, the CSB, the NIV, the NET, the NKJV, the KJV, the EHV, etc., we would have been in good shape if it had ended with the 1971 NASB and the NKJV. I would also add the NIV to that, since it often provides an understanding that is not readily apparent in more literal translations.
Further still, we also would have been in fine shape if the translations had ended with the KJV and the ASV—although I’m thankful it didn’t! Nevertheless, as I talked about earlier, I do see the providence of God regarding the solid line of translations leading up to this day. At the same time, we’re to live according to wisdom and spiritual discernment, and at some point I believe we’re to recognize when it’s time to cease and focus on the excellent translations we already have—while rejecting all the bad so-called translations that will surely keep pouring in.
I’d like to add one more thing to this discussion. Because of copyright laws and such a large number of translations, it forces translators to change the wording and word order so that copyrights are not infringed upon. I believe this inevitably results in slightly inaccurate or inferior translations.
Let’s be honest, if you’ve done a lot of comparing between the many translations we have, like I have, it creates confusion, because many of them are worded so differently from others that in some places they don’t even mean the same—even if it’s of no real consequence. I don’t know about you, but that bothers me. And let me be clear, I’m not talking so much about the top-tier translations as I am about some of the thought for thought translations (that’s the danger with that type of translation, as helpful as they are). To continue to come out with new translations only brings more confusion for Christians. It’s difficult enough as it is to decide on a primary Bible these days.
As I’ve already indicated, many translations can’t even be called a translation, where they provide merely the gist of God’s Word. I refer to these as gist-translations. I don’t believe God is in that. The Message is the perfect example of these gist-type translations. I pick on this “translation” because of its popularity. Thus, I feel I need to say something about it. There are many others that fall into that same category, but The Message is one of the worst. It adds words and ideas that aren’t in the originals, and they remove words and ideas that are. I suggest avoiding this paraphrase completely. It has no true value (except maybe as a commentary). It never should have been written or accepted so widely by the Christian community. In fact, as I indicated earlier, I don’t believe paraphrases should be used or accepted by anyone. They go beyond the boundaries of faithful Bible translation.
Recommendations
The frustrating thing about all translations – no matter how good they are – is that none of them are perfect. They’re all flawed in one way or another, or they simply don’t read well. They all have verses that either aren’t written well or they don’t appear to be as precisely accurate as other translations. That’s the reason it’s so difficult to choose between translations. There’s just too many good options, but each with their own positives and negatives. It was a lot easier back in the day when the main choices were the KJV, NASB, NKJV and the NIV—and even easier when it was primarily between the KJV and the ASV, and later between the KJV and the NASB.
On the positive side, we do have some wonderful translations to choose from today. Between all the translations I’ve mentioned in a positive light, it’s not so much about accuracy as it is style and personal taste. All the translations I’ve highlighted are accurate. Therefore, it really boils down to which type of translation method you believe in (see beginning under “Translations”), which translation you relate to the most in how it’s written, and which one allows you to understand the Bible better than the others. That will vary from person to person, because we’re all wired differently, and we’re all at different stages of learning and experience. Also, you may want to go with the same translation your church does for the sake of uniformity.
So how do we know which translation method is the best? Formal or Functional Equivalence? Since most of us aren’t Greek or Hebrew scholars, and since even they disagree with each other on this topic, I think for most Christians it may be best to take the balanced approach. The translations that provide the best balance between accuracy, readability, and understanding are the CSB, the NIV, the BSB, the ESV, the 2020 NASB, and the EHV. In my opinion these translations provide the best balance between formal and functional type of translations.
As I consider all the top translations, I don’t know of any other translations that really fit into this category like the above translations do. However, I think it’s always a wise practice to compare those with the more literal translations, like the LSB, the ASV/RASV, the NASB-1995, the KJV and NKJV, etc. On the other end, I would also suggest comparing them with the NLT, as I find the NLT very helpful in understanding verses that are difficult to understand. What I don’t recommend is comparing them with the paraphrases. We can’t trust them, so why bother?
All things considered: For balance between accuracy, readability, and understanding, for most people I recommend either the CSB, the NIV, the BSB, the ESV, the NET w/Notes, the NASB-2020, or the EHV — probably in that order. You can’t go wrong with any of these.
For the ultimate in accuracy and reliability among the Formal Equivalence translations, I would go with the LSB. After that, it’s really a toss-up between the NASB-1995 and the NASB-2020, depending on whether you want a gender-accurate translation or not.
On the Textus Receptus side, I would go with either the NKJV or the MEV. I believe both are improvements over the KJV. I encourage you to compare the two translations on Bible Gateway. They’re both “word for word” translations, both accurate and read well, so that will be a difficult choice.
Whatever translation you choose for your primary, I recommend that you use it in conjunction with the NET Bible with Translator’s Notes. This will aid in your understanding, as it has mine. If you choose to use the NET as your primary Bible, it should be used in conjunction with the Translator’s Notes. The translation and the Notes should be regarded as a single unit. The reason I have such a high opinion of the NET is because it’s an unsurpassed study Bible. Normally, I would say that the more literal translations make the best study Bibles, but I think the NET is the one exception to that rule. Those Translator’s Notes (also their study notes) provide a means of study no other translation gives us.
If you buy a print NET Bible, I recommend getting one without the Notes, because with the Notes, it’s a very large Bible with very small print, and the pages are packed with more Notes than Scripture. Therefore, for the Notes, I suggest using either Life Bible App (and lifebible.com), Bible Gateway, or Bible.org. That’s the way I do it. But that’s up to you.
Also, I would add the NLT alongside your primary translation and the NET w/Notes. The combination of these three will give you a good understanding of what most verses or passages are saying, where it’s not particularly clear.
For devotional reading: I recommend the NLT above all of them.
Giant Print Bible: If you’re looking for a great giant print Bible, look no further than the NASB-2020. I have this in hardback, and the print is perfect! Best I’ve seen. It’s clear and sharp, and the size of the print is not too large or too small. It’s the perfect size.
For me personally, I’ve been using the CSB as my primary Bible for the past year or so. I like the balance between the literal and meaning (clarity) of the text. As a translation by itself, the CSB is my favorite. However, the BSB is a serious contender for that top spot. Not only do I love the BSB translation itself, but it’s the translation I primarily use on this website. I also believe in supporting a translation publisher that is not money-motivated, where it’s been placed in the public domain to be used without restrictions or required royalties. However, I still have to go with the CSB. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the CSB gets it right in most places, especially in the most important places.
After those two translations, my favorite translation is probably the LSB. It’s the ultimate in word for word accuracy, and is my go-to translation for comparison. There’s a trust element I have with it that I don’t have with the other translations. Even with its use of “Yahweh” in the OT, I still haven’t counted it out as a possible primary Bible for me someday. Following those translations, my favorite translations are the NIV and the ESV. Honorable mention goes to the NKJV and the EHV.
I want to say more about the NLT, since it’s so popular. It’s challenging the NIV for first place among the most sold Bibles in a year. Overall, I really like this translation. However, while some (or many) would disagree with me, I can’t see it as a primary Bible. As I mentioned earlier, it’s great for comparison, but I think it’s too loose to be used as a primary translation. It’s not suitable for serious study. But I do think it’s really helpful for clarification of difficult verses, which is what I use it for. It’s great for getting the true sense of a verse or passage – if used carefully – but not as a primary translation. However, having said that, I do think the NLT is fine for new Christians or the young in age. The NLT would be my first choice for those two groups.
A translation I recommend using as a reference – and is along the same lines as the Amplified Bible (which I also recommend) – is the EXB. Like the Amplified, it provides additional information within the text. This includes alternate renderings, different nuances, interpretation and historical content, etc. I find this very helpful and I use it regularly, especially for Bible study. However, like the Amplified, since it’s not strictly a translation, I don’t recommend it as a primary Bible, but only as a supplement.
Conclusion
Choose a translation that is known to be accurate and one that reads well to you personally, and then settle in with that translation. You can’t go wrong with any of the translations I’ve recommended. I think we can spend too much time reading for the sake of finding the right translation, and not enough time reading for the sake of learning and applying it to our lives. And I’m as guilty of doing that as anyone. Therefore, we need to place most of our focus on our chosen translation. Switching back and forth from one translation to another is not a helpful practice.
Whatever you decide on as a primary Bible, it’s always a wise practice to compare translations when you’re engaged in Bible study and want to learn all you can about a particular verse or passage. However, don’t do so much comparison between translations that you get side-tracked and it becomes comparison shopping. Most of your attention should be on your primary Bible—trusting it, learning it and memorizing it.
Those of us who live in America and other free countries, I think we’re spoiled and make a bigger issue out of this than we need to. There are many followers of Christ who live in countries where Bibles are outlawed, and it wouldn’t matter to them which translation they had, as long as they knew they had the written Word of God in their hands. We’re a blessed people and a blessed generation with so many good Bible translations available today. Therefore, after you’ve done your research and have made a decision about a particular translation, be thankful for it and be done with it.
