I have written previously about the importance of careful Bible reading. For many reasons, it can be easy to misunderstand what the text is saying. For that reason, I recommend that believers (especially teachers) take these five steps as they read. However, I need to state the obvious here: If you are reading a bad version of the Bible, your interpretation of the Bible will be bad too. The person who listens to the news on a static-filled, choppy radio station will likely miss out or misunderstand. With so many accurate and helpful translations of the Bible in English, there is no reason for us to settle for static. Here are two types of Bibles to avoid using for biblical integration followed by a quick recommendation:
1) Sectarian Versions
Some Bibles have been edited to promote a certain theological standpoint. They are not as interested in accurately transmitting the ancient text to the modern world as they are in promoting a certain type of belief. In essence, those behind these books alter the Bible to be what they want instead of what God wants. Two examples of these Bibles come immediately to mind: The Passion Translation and The New World Translation.
The Passion Translation was written/translated by Brian Simmons to help English speakers experience the passion and fire of the Bible. However, as Andrew G. Shead notes,
“He achieves this by abandoning all interest in textual accuracy, playing fast and loose with the original languages, and inserting so much new material into the text that it is at least 50% longer than the original. The result is a strongly sectarian translation that no longer counts as Scripture; by masquerading as a Bible it threatens to bind entire churches in thrall to a false god.”
There are many issues with this book, but among the most serious is that the author adds his own content and re-words the Bible to promote a certain type of theology.
The New World Translation is put out by the Watchtower Society and is the “translation” used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. This version exists to promote an errant theology. Famously, undermining the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ’s deity, there are many changes made to what the text has stated historically. If a version of the Bible tries to change what the Bible says, we should avoid it.
Some versions of the Bible are not translations, but paraphrases. There is nothing wrong with a paraphrase as a devotional aid. But there is a problem if we use a paraphrase in place of a translation. Why? When we go to the Bible, we want to hear God’s words. When we go to a paraphrase, we are getting a person’s version of God’s words. “The primary problem of any paraphrase of the Bible is that it inputs far too much of a person’s opinion of what the Bible says, instead of simply stating what the Bible says.” The most popular paraphrase is The Message by Eugene Peterson. I am a fan of this book and have learned much from Peterson, but The Message should not be used as a version of the Bible. Another popular paraphrase is The Living Bible.
So what Bible should you use? Well, there is a great book on the topic. This is a complex question, but I would quickly recommend that teachers use an easy-to-understand, but credible version with their classes. The NIV, CSB, or NLT could be good options. However, in your own study, it can be very helpful to compare one of these easy-to-read (dynamic) versions with more formal versions like the ESV, NASB, or KJV. You can often gain helpful insight and accuracy by comparing two different translations.
To sum up: If we want to have accurate biblical integration, let’s use accurate translations of the Bible.
2 thoughts on “Biblical Integration Requires a Good Bible (or Two)”
I agree with your logic.
I would however say that your leaving the CSB in the functional equivalent (old school and less accurate term was “dynamic equivalent”) when it is closer to the formal equivalent (old school and less accurate term “word for word”) varieties than it is yet given credit.
I use the CSB like an RSV/ESV because of it’s reported accuracy, with the NASB being a more formal equivalent than those two. It just so happens I now believe the CSB folks succeeded. They really didn’t feel the need to give up accuracy when they also made it readable, and did the job well (e.g. unlike the NLT, no offense to those who use it but THAT is a functional equivalent).
Thanks so much for reaching out with this thoughtful comment! I generally agree that the CSB succeeded in being functionally and formally equivalent. I also applaud their desire to bend the spectrum so that the two translation priorities are not at odds with each other.
I didn’t want to lengthen the post with info about translation philosophy, so I mentioned the CSB as a readable Bible and lumped it with the dynamic/functional versions. I chose to do this because 1) I didn’t want to leave it off the list even though it doesn’t neatly fit into a category, and 2) the CSB charts itself as slightly more dynamic than formal (https://csbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/horizontal-gbi-chart.jpg).
I am a big fan of the version and am currently using it for my personal reading.