my top Bible versions for different categories

Different Bible versions serve different audiences and purposes. It is helpful to use a variety of Bible versions. Some are better for detailed word studies, while others are better for grasping overall themes. Here are my current picks for top Bible versions for different categories that I can think of. (You can find Bible version abbreviations on our blog Versions page. When I list more than one version for a category my preferences go from left to right, starting with my highest current choice.):

1. most accurate exegetically: several qualify here, including NET, TNIV NIV2011, NRSV

2. most natural English: CEV, TEV, BLB

3. most stimulating: Phillips, The Message

4. best liturgical: NRSV, TNIV NIV2011

5. best children’s Bible: CEV, NCV

6. best pulpit/pew Bible: NLT, TNIV NIV2011

7. best study version: NET, TNIV NIV2011, NRSV, (added: HCSB)

8. best multipurpose version: NLT, TNIV NIV2011

UPDATE:

9. most elegant/eloquent: REB (HT: Carl Conrad, Dan Wallace)

10. most genre sensitive: none

What are your top favorites for one or more of these categories?

What other categories useful for Bible versions can you think of?

53 thoughts on “my top Bible versions for different categories

  1. David Dewey says:

    While I share many of Wayne’s comments, I find it interesting that the ESV, NASB and HCSB get no mention. Is it that you simply don’t use them, Wayne, or don’t like them? I would put NLT in the most natural English category, and the HCSB as a good all-rounder.

  2. Don says:

    I just got “The Books of the Bible” and am very impressed with the organization, so I think this would be “best organized” to show structures, mainly by deleting the additions and divisions made over time. It uses the TNIV for its text.

    For the best translation of many “gender” verses, I like the “Think Again” Bible translation, however, it only gives its translations for those verses.

    For Greek translation info not yet in lexicons, I like Nyland’s The Source New Testament.

    My take is that everyone needs to MAKE THEIR OWN translation as best they can; of course this means adopting ideas from others.

  3. David Ker says:

    I’m trying really hard to think of some funny options for 9 and 10… heaviest, best for Bible-thumping, thinnest pages.

    Iyov gave his top ten here: My top ten and Rick Mansfield’s are here: The Boxed Set

    I like your categories. They’re very practical. I suppose someone would ideally want a version that fits in as many categories as possible. But possibly having an easy to read version and a study version would give you the basic tools for quite a lot of those situations.

    Can you explain a bit more about #7? I can understand NET for its extensive notes but are there study editions of TNIV and NRSV that I don’t know about?

  4. Wayne Leman says:

    David asked:

    While I share many of Wayne’s comments, I find it interesting that the ESV, NASB and HCSB get no mention. Is it that you simply don’t use them, Wayne, or don’t like them?

    I used the NASB for many years after it was first published. I have not used the ESV or HCSB, except to evaluate them

    None of them fit into any of my current categories, my personal preferences. I prefer to read different English which follows the most widespread English literary usage for syntax and word combinations.

  5. Wayne Leman says:

    David asked:

    Can you explain a bit more about #7? I can understand NET for its extensive notes but are there study editions of TNIV and NRSV that I don’t know about?

    I wondered if this question might come up. I was trying not to have a category for “study Bible” (although that would be another appropriate category). I was trying to have a category for best version for doing Bible study. I’m referring to the translated text itself, not to Bible study notes.

    Maybe you can help me think of a better way to word that category label.

  6. Nathan Stitt says:

    I would add the REB and NJB to #3. I would also put the ESV in there somewhere, I use it mostly during study, so probably #7. It is interesting that the two most widely used translations don’t get a mention; and I’m not complaining. 🙂

  7. Robert Jimenez says:

    Here is how my list looks, however I don’t have an opinion for number 5.

    1. most accurate exegetically: several qualify here, including TNIV, HCSB, ESV

    2. most natural English: NLT

    3. most stimulating: The Message, Phillips

    4. best liturgical: TNIV, HCSB

    6. best pulpit/pew Bible: NLT, TNIV, HCSB (still working on this and it may change, the TNIV may be first choice)

    7. best study version: HCSB, TNIV, ESV, NLT

    8. best multipurpose version: TNIV, HCSB, NLT

  8. Dru says:

    I too back the REB. It’s the version I use these days for normal reading. For more literal versions, I’ve never quite got in tune with the NRSV. It may be a sign of my age, but I still prefer the old RSV.

    I still wish though the REB had the extra books the NRSV has in its Apocrypha.

    I’ve a major grumble with the number of serious translations that do not include the Apocrypha at all. It may not be authoritative, but as spiritual literature, why leave it out if one is prepared to read the writings of theologians and others through the ages. I recognise that there’s a problem as to which text, but which of them even remotely competes with Ecclesiasticus.

  9. Nathan Stitt says:

    Which two are those, Nathan?

    The NIV and KJV. Even though I rarely use them, they seem to be the dominant translations still.

  10. Dru says:

    Sorry, I was going to add. Some translations don’t seem to be all that available outside the US. Although I’ve got an electronic copy with its remarkable notes, I’ve never seen a physical copy. Nor have I ever seen an HCSB, nor, I think, a CEV. The TNIV also never seems to have achieved much headway here against the NIV. So I would find it difficult to say which should have the edge over the other or why.

  11. Wayne Leman says:

    Nathan answered:

    The NIV and KJV. Even though I rarely use them, they seem to be the dominant translations still.

    Thanks, Nathan. Well, I grew up with the KJV and memorized huge amounts of it. It wordings are what I still recall when wanting to look up a phrase in a concordance. I never have used the NIV for one of my regular Bibler, but I know, affirmed by several Bible scholars, that the TNIV is more accurate–and I have spent many hours evaluating the TNIV and sending revision suggestions to its team, so I’ve seen improvements over the NIV–so I see no reason not to use the more accurate translation today.

    Neither version makes my list of preferred translations, although both are widely used. This is *my* list of preferred translations. I know that other people’s lists will vary and I hope that my post will stimulate them to post their preferences here or on their own blog.

    What I hope to accomplish with this post is to show that one version may be preferred for one purpose, while another may be preferred for another purpose.

    There is value in using more than one kind of Bible translation. But I suspect I’m preaching to the choir. I just like to make sure my points are getting across. (My children would tell me, “But, Dad, you’ve already said that” !!)

  12. CharlesPDog says:

    Why don’t people like the NIV? Is the TNIV that much more accurate to warrant the category exegetically accurate? I thought the NIV was a paraphase, or phrase by phrase.

  13. Wayne Leman says:

    Charles asked:

    I thought the NIV was a paraphase, or phrase by phrase.

    Oh, far from it. The NIV is an essentially literal translation, slightly less literal than the NASB or ESV. It is by no means a paraphrase or phrase by phrase translation.

    The Living Bible was a paraphrase. The Message is a paraphrase. The New Living Bible approaches being a phrase by phrase translation.

    Why don’t people like the NIV?

    From what I have seen and what the Christian booksellers numbers continue to confirm, millions love the NIV. I probably would have liked it if I had worshiped in a church which used it. The versions which have been used in my churches have been KJV, NASB, and NRSV.

    The versions I like are mentioned in this post. But I do not dislike the NIV. It is a good translation. The TNIV is a good revision to the NIV. There are several good translations out there. And all translations have been blessed by God and used by him to minister to people.

  14. Brian says:

    1. NET, HCSB
    5. NCV
    7. ESV, NET

    I’ve started looking at the TNIV as well. My NASB and NIV don’t get used as much as they used to.

    AMDG

  15. Juan says:

    Wayne Leman said:
    “And all translations have been blessed by God and used by him to minister to people.”

    Would you consider the NWT to have been blessed by God used by him in some way?

  16. Wayne Leman says:

    Would you consider the NWT to have been blessed by God used by him in some way?

    It has been, yes. If people will read the NWT seriously, they can be saved and built up in their faith. I disagree with its bias against the deity of Christ, but God is able to use faulty messengers of all kinds. I’m proof of that!

  17. Peter Kirk says:

    Charles, NIV is a very good translation, which I used as my primary version for over 20 years. But it did have some deficiencies, as of course does every translation. Over those 20 years or so the translation team which created NIV noticed many of those deficiencies and decided how to correct them. The result was TNIV. I don’t claim that every one of the changes is an improvement, but the great majority are. The well known gender related changes are only a small part of the overall improvement.

    It is really sad that so many people have rejected all of these improvements in TNIV because of exaggerated objections to just a few of them.

  18. exegete77 says:

    1. most accurate exegetically: several qualify here, including NAS, NKJV, HCSB , NET, RSV (2002 RCC revision with Apocrypha)

    2. most natural English: GW, and secondarily NLT, NET (CEV is too choppy for this consideration)

    3. most stimulating: REB, HCSB, JPS, NJB

    4. best liturgical: NKJV, RSV (2002 RCC revision with Apocrypha), ESV, NRSV

    5. best children’s Bible: GW

    6. best pulpit/pew Bible: GW, NKJV

    7. best study version: NAS, NKJV, NET, HCSB, RSV (2002 RCC revision with Apocrypha)

    8. best multipurpose version: GW, NKJV, RSV (2002 RCC revision with Apocrypha), NIV

    9. most elegant/eloquent: REB, KJV, RSV (2002 RCC revision with Apocrypha)

    10. most genre sensitive: none (worst case: CEV because of its short sentence flattening of everything)

    I really want to like the ESV, but there are just too many places where the English is awkward and thus is not a natural read. However, if a congregation has the ESV, then I would use it. I actually like the RSV (2002 RCC revision with Apocrypha) better than the ESV.

    Likewise, I have used the NIV in many congregations for 20+ years, but it never became one of my favorites. So perhaps contradictorily, I have it listed as one of the best multi-purpose Bibles. TNIV is not there for me yet, if ever, because of a translation philosophy (also NRSV and NLT) about switching to plurals in many cases to avoid masculine singular references. And yes, I have read all the arguments posed to support such a decision, but I’m not convinced of that approach. I would be in favor of inventing a genderless 3rd person singular pronoun. LOL

    Rich

  19. Tony Miller says:

    While my choices may sound odd to most now days I typically read from the Geneva Bible, either the Hendrickson 1560 in original spelling or the Toll Edge 1599 in modern English. I also enjoy the KJV, again in original spelling aka the 1611 version. I have always been a very traditional person, typically stuck in a time several generations before my own.

  20. CharlesPDog says:

    I am looking for a good study Bible and am very impressed with the number of the notes included in the NET Bible, to a layman they appear quite scholarly (I don’t read Hebrew or Greek). I am looking for a very ecumenical bible, with a scholarly approach and am very concerned about theological bias. I am not familiar with the DTS but some folks have made less than kind remarks about their agenda with the NET Bible. Is there any truth to this? Are the Thompson Chain Bibles good for study? I am making the assumption that they have little or no theological agenda. How do they differ from other well cross referenced Bibles. I like the New Interpreters Bible but am not especially fond of the NSRV. Assuming that I like the language of the KJV and can notate the translation errors in say the Thompson Chain KJV found on the internet, is this a good version? I have the E-Sword software with the ESV KJV, NASB, and the RSV. I am toying with get the NIV/TNIV set for the E-Sword, (the NIV leaves me spiritually cold). I have the NET Software version. While I like the Software I prefer to read a book. Any input would be most appreciated.

  21. Wayne Leman says:

    I am not familiar with the DTS but some folks have made less than kind remarks about their agenda with the NET Bible. Is there any truth to this?

    I don’t think so. I have spent many hours studying the NET Bible and have found no bias in it.

  22. exegete77 says:

    Peter wrote: “Rich, why invent a new one, when there already is one, “they”?”

    To me, and to many people that I know (not all of them are over 40! LOL), “they” does not work for a 3rd person singular, despite what some groups might claim.

    But that is just me.

  23. Wayne Leman says:

    To me, and to many people that I know (not all of them are over 40! LOL), “they” does not work for a 3rd person singular, despite what some groups might claim

    I don’t think it’s so much that some groups claim that it does, but, rather, that literature clearly shows that “they” has been used as the 3rd person neuter indefinite pronoun for centuries. It’s an observation of longtime language usage, not a claim. Some good authors have used “they” in this way, including, Shakespeare, Jane Austen, C.S. Lewis, and even the translators of the KJV (e.g. 2 Kings 14:12; Matt. 18:35; Phil. 2:3) and the man who initiated the meeting at which the Colorado Springs Guidelines (which eschewed this use of “they”) were formulated, Dr. James Dobson.

    Clearly, not everyone today uses the indefinite (not singular) “they” in their (!) or writing. One main reason for this is that in the late 1800’s English teachers began declaring that we should not use “they” to agree with an indefinite pronoun. But that was a pronouncement of grammatical correctness, not an observation of how people actually spoke or wrote. It was a kind of p.c. (political correctness).

    Regardless of the longtime usage of indefinite “they”, you are among good company in not wanting to use it. We have been led to believe that “they” because “they” is gramamatically plural in some contexts, it cannot be semantically indefinite (not singular) in some contexts. But this does not reflect the fact that syntax and semantics often do not align exactly in many languages.

    To each their own 🙂

  24. Mike Sangrey says:

    Wayne, I appreciate your strict distinction between singular they and indefinite they.

    For the people who “see” a singular they:

    When reading the translated text, do you see the singular because you know about the singular in the original? Or do you see the singular because it sounds all the world like it should be plural when you expect a singular? In other words, it sounds ungrammatical. And similarly, when does it sound grammatical?

    For me, statements like the following sound perfectly grammatical (and I’m over 40): To each their own (good one, Wayne 🙂 ), or The student took the test when they were tired. Another is (referent is singular), What were they thinking? By the way, the indefinite comes out nicely in the last statement, since the intention is to play down the possibility of a critical attitude of the speaker. A he or she is more pointed.

    Unfortunately, in order to get a solid answer to these questions requires one to somehow shift into a state that is both self-analytical and natural. That is quite difficult (probably impossible) for anyone.

  25. CD-Host says:

    Juan —

    I’ll be happy to defend the NWT on its merits as a NA26 translation. Back in July I got about 1/2 way through an NWT review and I still have my notes. First, off the bracketing to indicate words added for clarity is an excellent features of the NWT, it allows them to offer many of the advantages of formal and dynamic translation at the same time. Secondly, they are much more aware and accommodating to the fact that NT authors are quoting the LXX than many evangelical translations. Third, they have an official interlinear published along with their Greek Text (Kingdom interlinear) which clearly shows places where the NWT engaged in theological overrides. That’s an impressive level of notation and honesty. Fourth, the translation reads well better than any other major translation from the 1950s. Fifth, the translation preserves the “greekness” the greek in many places.

    It is an older translation but it does a good job. I’m assuming that you are objecting to it being an Arianist translation, a style that was more popular at the turn of the 20th century. But after all this is a translation to support an Arianist sect. So other than not agreeing with their theology what is your objection?

  26. exegete77 says:

    Mike Sangrey wrote: “When reading the translated text, do you see the singular because you know about the singular in the original? Or do you see the singular because it sounds all the world like it should be plural when you expect a singular? In other words, it sounds ungrammatical. And similarly, when does it sound grammatical?”

    Excellent questions, Mike. So, to put specific texts to the challenge, consider Psalm 1:1-2 in TNIV:

    “Blessed are those
    who do not walk in step with the wicked
    or stand in the way that sinners take
    or sit in the company of mockers,
    but who delight in the law of the LORD
    and meditate on his law day and night.”

    Can someone who reads this determine that the original is a singular? If not, what difference does this make to understanding the original language text? Isn’t that the purpose of all translations – to help us understand the original language text better?

    Rich

  27. Wayne Leman says:

    Rich, I’m wondering if Mike was asking his questions about sensing a plural or an indefinite about passages translated with the indefinite “they”. Psalm 1 is translated in the TNIV with a true grammatical and semantic plural. There is no indefinite “they.” You properly raise the question about faithfulness to original grammatical number of the Hebrew. Of course, the Hebrew may be more complicated than it appears at first, if it is referring to an indefinite “man” (or “person”) rather than a specific one. Indefinites take special care in translation. But I think in this case, your question still deserves to be asked.

    I’m wondering if Mike was thinking more about a passage such as Rev. 3:20 in the TNIV which does not have a semantically plural “they”, but, instead, an indefinite “they”. Here is the wording:

    Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.

    Here, with “they” having as its antecedent the indefinite pronoun “anyone,” does it “feel” like “they” is singular, plural, or something else (the something else could be semantic indefiniteness)?

  28. Mike Sangrey says:

    Rich, Wayne has done a good job in clarifying. Thanks Wayne!

    Regarding your question: Isn’t that the purpose of all translations – to help us understand the original language text better?

    We might be speaking past each other, but I don’t think that is the purpose of all translations. I tend to think it is the purpose of literal translations. That is, to somehow or other help the reader get closer to the original text. But for that type of translation, in order for the reader to understand better, they need to bring (in my opinion) a rather substantial level of skill to that type of translation.

    However, when the reader handles a translation which has properly synthesized the original meaning using the destination language, then it is not the original text which is in view. It is the original meaning (this is where we might be speaking past each other, and, in fact, saying the same thing).

    Also, I think you’re asking an excellent question. Perhaps this could be field tested with a question like:
    who is/are blessed?
    is it a single individual,
    a group considered as a group,
    or the individuals of a group.

  29. exegete77 says:

    Thanks, Mike and Wayne.

    So, to fall into the category you indicate, then Psalm 1:1-2 should be translated as:

    “Blessed is the one
    who does not walk in step with the wicked
    or stand in the way that sinners take
    or sit in the company of mockers,
    but they delight in the law of the LORD
    and meditate on his law day and night.”

    Of course, the only problem is that “they” could refer to the wicked/sinners/mockers, since that is the closer antecedent. How about this?

    Blessed is the one
    who does not walk in step with the wicked
    or stand in the way that sinners take
    or sit in the company of mockers,
    but whose delight in the law of the LORD
    and meditates on his law day and night.”

    Now, the Psalm remains grammatically singular, which also matches the original language text, and which I think is part of the meaning of the original language text.

    Mike, as you note, we may be talking past each other. The reason I stress the “original language text” is that many times we assume that if a translation uses certain words/phrases, then its meaning is the meaning of the original language text. But it may or may not. Perhaps this helps us get to the meaning of the original language text in context. Especially in Hebrew, it seems that the original language texts use the singular and plural more carefully than some translations reflect, and changes in grammatical number within certain contexts are vital to understanding the meaning of the original language text.

    Rich

  30. Rick Ritchie says:

    “Best liturgical” sounds like a package of criteria, which could be hierarchically-arranged in various orders. What was meant here? Literary quality? Ease of understanding? Inclusive language? Concordant renderings of passages that come up together in the Lectionary? In the Tyndale tradition but accurate?

    I’m sure this is a valid category, but in a list which contains some of the other factors which might go to make a Bible the best liturgical choice, it is confusing, and I’d like to know what was in view.

  31. David Frank says:

    Rich (exegete77) wrote,

    Can someone who reads this determine that the original is a singular? If not, what difference does this make to understanding the original language text? Isn’t that the purpose of all translations – to help us understand the original language text better?

    Mike Sangrey responded,

    We might be speaking past each other, but I don’t think that is the purpose of all translations. I tend to think it is the purpose of literal translations. That is, to somehow or other help the reader get closer to the original text.

    Rich wrote again,

    Mike, as you note, we may be talking past each other. The reason I stress the “original language text” is that many times we assume that if a translation uses certain words/phrases, then its meaning is the meaning of the original language text. But it may or may not.

    My comment: I think there is something subtle going on in the dialogue here. What do you mean by “the language of the original text”? If you say, “the same message that the original text was communicating,” then I would say, yes, that is the purpose of translation. But if “the language of the original text” means the linguistic forms of the original text, then I would say that that is not the purpose of translation.

    The problem is that form and meaning are sometimes inextricably entwined. (I don’t remember where I got that phrase from. Maybe Kenneth Pike.) Sometimes translation is presented as a detachment of the meanings of a text from the forms of one language and a reattachment of those meanings to the forms of another language, but in reality it doesn’t work out that way so neatly. In translation it is unavoidable sometimes to have to sacrifice certain meanings of the source text in order to perserve and emphasize other meanings that are considered more important and central. It is an illusion to think that even a literal translation preserves all of the meaning of the source text, or that it does so better than a free translation.

    But back to the point, I would say that, no, the purpose of translation is not to allow the reader to understand the linguistic forms of the source text, but yes, its purpose is to allow the reader to understand the meaning of the source text.

    Rich, I think you are on to something when you say that sometimes the goal of a translation is to continue a tradition and the preserve familiar wordings, whether or not they are accurate. We would like to think that all a translation has to do is to faithfully communicate the same meaning as the source text, but the translator also has to be aware of acceptability issues. That is, if you want your translation to be used, you have to take the users’ expectations into consideration. That might mean saying things the way they have always been said, even if the translator knows better. You have to do that, or else educate people about how a good translation should read.

  32. Wayne Leman says:

    Rick wondered:

    I’m sure this is a valid category, but in a list which contains some of the other factors which might go to make a Bible the best liturgical choice, it is confusing, and I’d like to know what was in view.

    Thanks for raising this issue, Rick. I’m sure that others have the same questions. I hope we can discuss this in another blog post. I did not grow up in a church which uses a Bible translation for liturgical purposes in the way in which those who are part of “liturgical” churches use the Bible. (Of course, each church develops a traditional pattern which can be considered a kind of liturgy, but I think most of us know what is meant by a church following a liturgical order of service.) Anyway, I’ll need to get help from others here who are more familiar with the requirements for Bible versions for use in liturgy.

  33. Peter Kirk says:

    Rich, the problem with your singular only rendering comes in verse 3. I would also tidy up verse 2 to be closer to the original TNIV. So how about this:

    Blessed is the one
    who does not walk in step with the wicked
    or stand in the way that sinners take
    or sit in the company of mockers,
    but who delights in the law of the LORD
    and meditates on his law day and night.
    This person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
    which yields its fruit in season
    and whose leaf does not wither –
    whatever this one does prospers.

    But to my ear it works better with the indefinite “they”, twice, in verse 3. By the way, since you noted a possible ambiguity with “they” in verse 2, I will note a possible ambiguity with “He” in verse 3, that it could be misunderstood as referring to “the LORD” as does the preceding “his”.

  34. exegete77 says:

    Peter, I appreciate your alteration, and agree that v. 3 needs revision, such as you suggested. I still think number in the original language text should be the controlling factor. But we have covered that already.

    Rich

  35. Jake says:

    I would say/add:

    Best Literal: Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), KJV, ESV (most Tyndale translations are pretty literal, like the KJV. I do not use the KJV, although I use the NKJV and ASV sometimes which are revisions. YLT is the most literal I have come across. I do not own a physical copy, but I like to reference it. ESV is my favorite literal translation because it still sounds very natural, but it is not as literal as YLT or KJV).

    Best For General Reading: God’s Word Translation (GWT), NIV, ESV (God’s Word Translation is great for reading. My edition has a single column layout. It is translated in a way that is most familiar to modern English readers than any other Bible I have read very much. NIV and ESV are my preferences. NIV is what my church has used even as I was growing up. I memorized a lot of scripture in it. ESV I have found great for reading as well).

    Best for Children: NIrV, NCV (These were what I used as children–yes I’m that young–and I really liked them both. I moved from NIrV though because it seemed too simplified. My mom got me a youth Bible in the NCV translation–before I was really a youth–but I very much enjoy the translation even now for comparison.)

  36. Adam says:

    I would also like some clarification on what criteria makes some versions better for study than others. This is not to dismiss any of the choices but rather to gain a better understanding by what is meant by “best study version.”

  37. Wayne Leman says:

    Adam asked:

    Where, if anywhere, would the NIV2011 rank on this list?

    Substitute NIV2011 for TNIV, which is no longer published. Of course, the NIV2011 was not yet available in 2008 when the blog post above was written.

  38. Wayne Leman says:

    Adam asked:

    I would also like some clarification on what criteria makes some versions better for study than others. This is not to dismiss any of the choices but rather to gain a better understanding by what is meant by “best study version.”

    Good question, Adam. For me, a Bible version must be written in contemporary English in order for it to make it on to this list. By contemporary English I mean English which is currently spoken and written by native speakers of English. Then, typically many people want a study Bible to be in English which is more literary than the easier-to-read versions. Often a Bible written in contemporary literary English better reflects concordance of terms in the original biblical texts. (The desire for concordance must, however, be tempered by an even higher desire for accuracy. The biblical languages, like all languages, sometimes have words which have different meanings in different contexts. When words have different meanings in different contexts, there should not be concordance, which can communicate that the meaning is the same in each context when it actually is not. But there should be concordance of a word in translation whenever the meaning of that word is the same.)

    A Bible version with such concordance, sensitive to meaning differences in different contexts, allows for careful study of biblical words, each occurrence of “flesh” when it means ‘people,’ for instance.

    I also like a study Bible to have extensive footnotes explaining translation choices made by that version’s translation team. The NET Bible stands at the top of the list for number of such notes explaining translations choices.

  39. Adam says:

    Where might the Common English Bible find itself, if anywhere on the list? Is it more suitable than say the NLT for study?

  40. Wayne Leman says:

    Adam asked:

    Where might the Common English Bible find itself, if anywhere on the list?

    My initial inclination would be to include it with # 4, 6, 7, and 8.

    Is it more suitable than say the NLT for study?

    I think so, depending on what kind of study one is doing. If one is studying for basic themes, the NLT is probably better. But if one wants to do study of smaller language units such as clauses and words, then I’m guessing the CEB would be better.

    I think it would be a nice combination to use both versions for devotions and personal study. I’m guessing that the CEB might have an edge on the NLT for group Bible study, again, depending on what kind of study is done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s