The History of the English Bible

As we continue our study of Bibliology, and after you've read the Bibliology blog prior to this one, God's Word Preserved, it's time that we talk about when His Word was translated into our native language. This is a wonderful and fascinating study, and is a topic I truly love. You can find this information in many different places, some of which I'll share, but I hope to compile some of it into one blog to give you a good starting point should you choose to continue researching the topic.

Perhaps this subject is really of no interest to you at all. You have a Bible that you love and have used for years, and though it's neat to know of other Bible translation's history, it's really irrelevant to you. If that's you, I'm afraid you might be in jeopardy of taking the Bible for granted, not understanding or caring about the blood-stained history it bears. It's a story of God's gracious providence that, if nothing else, should bring us comfort and interest for the mere fact that it's God's grace. I believe this is a subject most all Christians should have an understanding of as it gives us a sincere appreciation for Scripture and our English translations, as well as prevents us from abusing our translations.

In addition, I'd like to also make the case that this is necessary for Christians in our area to know. In the past, I have argued that parents need to prepare their children for what they will hear in college, primarily if they have to take any religion courses. Knowing the history of the Bible is one of the most important ways you can help prepare them. Well, as of a recent school board decision to introduce a Bible course into all 3 high schools in our county, I think it is even more important that you prepare yourself. When I think "state school Bible class," I think of people like Bart Ehrman, who is an agnostic state university professor of New Testament in North Carolina, and all of the other agnostic/atheistic state school Bible teachers like him. I won't go on a rant here, but I do beg of you to not be so naive as to think public school Bible courses are some sort of church Bible study. And if you insist on your child taking that elective, gird up your loins and over-prepare to combat whatever they may hear in class. And please, humbly evaluate yourself and your Bible knowledge and decide if you're legitimately qualified to combat whatever error your child could learn. Secondly, evaluate the risk of doubt being put in their minds for them to embrace when they leave the home. Don't put unnecessary burdens on them to bear for their faith, sending them into the lions den of unbelieving Bible education hoping they come out a stronger Christian. Don't hand them to the state wanting them to teach your child the Bible better than you know it. They may actually do it, and telling them "don't believe that, that's crazy," doesn't remove whatever doubt that has been placed in their minds that they may embrace once they leave the home. I plead with you, prepare yourself. Keep in mind two statements Satan used in regards to God's Word: "Hath God said?" and "For it is written..." all for evil purposes. The same tactics are used when unbelievers teach Bible.

And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (I Corinthians 2:13-14 NET)

In the last Bibliology blog, we talked about Desiderius Erasmus publishing the first Greek New Testament, its crucial importance as well as it's problems. Now, we will address the translations that followed from his monumental work.

A Word on Translations

It's important for us to realize that Biblical translations have a history that goes back much further than the English Bible. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with some parts of Daniel written in Aramaic, but a Greek translation was made about 200 years before Christ called the Septuagint. Interestingly enough, Jesus and the apostles quote from the Greek Septuagint 95% of the time, not the Hebrew. Jesus knew that His Word wasn't bound to one particular language to maintain its inspiration. To Him, the Greek translation of the Old Testament was God's Word, as was the original Hebrew.

Shortly after the gospels and epistles were circulating, people were translating them into different languages such as Coptic, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic, Spanish, and other languages so that more people could possess a copy of God's Word. It was crucial that God's Word not only be available, but be comprehensive in that language.

There's a perception, I believe, that God's Word must carry with it a level of difficulty because it's God's Word. Because God is Holy and Royal, His Word must possess an air of royalty and majesty. This is why many still choose to read old translations such as the King James Version because it maintains that beautiful and majestic sound that we expect from God. It sounds Holy, even if nobody talks like that.

But consider the type of Greek used to write the New Testament by the apostles and writers. It is known as Koine Greek, or Common Greek. It was written in a common form of Greek so that commoners could understand it. From it's birth, the New Testament was not meant to sound or read with difficulty. An early church Christian reading the letters from Paul wouldn't think this just sounds holy. It would have been no different than a letter written from a friend. Scripture was meant to be comprehensible. It's meant to be in the common language of the people.

The Wycliffe Bible

In 1384, about 120 years before Erasmus published his Greek New Testament, John Wycliffe published the first complete Bible in English. Previously, there had been some passages translated into English, but Wycliffe was the first one to publish an entire Bible. Given that the official Bible of the Catholic Church was the Latin Vulgate, and that Erasmus hadn't published his Greek New Testament yet, it follows that Wycliffe translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, not Greek and Hebrew. Another modern Bible such as the Douay-Rheims version, a Catholic Bible, is also translated from the Latin.

There's an idea floating around that "the older the translation, the better." For some reason, some believe that the first time the Bible was translated into English was the perfect time, and ever since then we've been declining and adding agendas to the Bible. When I hear that, my response is always to suggest the Wycliffe Bible since it was the first English Bible. But there are some passages in it that us Protestants would take issue with. Not only that, the spelling and writing style of that time is completely foreign to us. Here is an example,

And Petre seide to hem, Do ye penaunce, and eche of you be baptisid in the name of Jhesu Crist, in to remissioun of youre synnes; and ye schulen take the yifte of the Hooli Goost. (Dedis of Apostlis 2:38)

Here's a modern spelling update,

And Peter said to them, Do ye penance [Penance, he said, do ye], and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, into remission of your sins; and ye shall take the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Our modern Bible's translate this passage more literally,

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 ESV, emphasis added).

Penance and Repentance carry two totally different meanings. We can't say, "the older the translation, the better."

Despite these theological errors, the Wycliffe Bible was very useful. Yet, it was a difficult translation to possess a copy of due to its creation being before the Gutenburg Printing Press. If you wanted a copy of the Wycliffe Bible, you had to make a hand copy yourself or purchase a handwritten copy, which was expensive. David Beale states, "the price of an hour's loan of the Bible was a load of hay." How seriously would you take your devotions if you only had an hour that month to do them??

Because of his direct attacks of the church in Rome in the margin commentary of his translation, John Wycliffe was condemned as a heretic, which included that his Bible translation be banned from use. Not only that, but it became illegal to even read the Bible in English. In 1401, King Henry IV made "heresy" a state or secular crime, punishable by burning at the stake. The Roman Catholic Church simply tried people in their own courts, then handed them over to the government for burning. Wycliffe wasn't burned at the stake or martyred, but his books and translation were, and some 43 years after his death, his bodily remains were dug up and burned. And here, we start to see the trend of what it took to create a translation of the Bible in English.

Perhaps others could give a better explanation than I could, but let's just think about what the purpose of burning someone at the stake was. You may ask, why didn't they hang heretics or behead them? There were times when they were beheaded, but often they were set on fire. It was a historical punishment that went back much further than the Reformation, but I think the method had significance for the crime of "heresy."

1. I know that there is a debate over whether or not cremation is wrong for Christians, but we do know that cremation has its roots in paganism. Christians are buried because we believe in the resurrection of the body when Christ returns. Sure, being made into ash doesn't prevent God from resurrecting the body, but burial is very intentional for Christians. It is a sign that we believe in His return, which is also why we bury bodies facing the East. Our bodies are lying in wait for His return. It follows that when someone is condemned as a heretic, condemned to Hell, that their body be burned so that it can't be resurrected one day. A Christian, especially at that time, would have desired to be buried. Burning them was a way of punishing them to the uttermost.

2. Ashes leave nothing to remember you by. There is no grave to visit and no headstone to leave your name on. In essence, the memory of you is gone. There is no trace of you left on earth. And when you're wanting to shut down a movement, destroying the body leaves no memorial in which people can mourn or leaves a symbol of heroism.

Back to our topic, today, anybody can make a translation in English. It may not be good or reliable, but it's perfectly legal to do so. Often times, when a Christian publishing company wants to publish their own Bible commentaries or study Bibles, they make their own translation to avoid paying copyright fees to other publishing companies to use their Bible version. That is why we have so many versions today! But the risk and the scrutiny that came with creating an English translation some 500-700 years ago adds to the amazement of how we came to have a Bible in our own language. I would say most wouldn't be willing to endure such persecution, and those who were willing also had to possess the capability to create a translation. We will see Spurgeon's words become true as we watch this history unfold, "Our Bible is a blood-stained book. The blood of martyrs is on the Bible, the blood of translators and confessors. The doctrines which we preach to you are doctrines that have been baptized in blood."

The Tyndale Bible

This section could be multiple blogs in a series, and a lot of books have been written about Tyndale's work to translate the Bible into English. Despite Wycliffe's good and sincere work in translating the Bible, William Tyndale, also an ordained Roman Catholic Priest, is known as "the father of the English Bible."

Translations are updated and based on prior translations of Scripture. The New King James Version is based on the King James Version. The Legacy Standard Bible is based on the New American Standard Bible. The New Revised Standard Version is based on the Revised Standard Version. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (now the Christian Standard Bible) is based on the New International Version. The English Standard Version is based on the King James Version. But all English Bible translations are linked back to William Tyndale's translation.

We owe so much of the English language to William Tyndale apart from what we owe him for translating the Bible into English. He created words such as scapegoat and inspiration, as well as many others. Through his hiding for 12 years while working to publish a trustworthy translation of Scripture, he carried a torch of the Reformation in giving laypeople God's Word. His distain for the Roman Catholic Church was also made known in his theological marginal notes that were included with his translation, such as all Bible translations did up until the King James Version. We will address why a little later. He wrote in a note on Exodus 32:15 concerning the golden calf made by Aaron, "the pope's bull slayeth more than Aaron's calf."

Tyndale had the benefit of living after the creation of the printing press, which meant his work could circulate more broadly, more accurately, and more secretly. This did require him to trust certain people in hiding him and to print his work in secrecy.

He worked vigorously at translating the New Testament and updating his translation, as well as translating passages of the Hebrew Old Testament. While imprisoned in a cold cell, battling a constant sickness and chronic discharges, he still requested his Hebrew Bible and study material to continue working. I don't even write blogs when I'm sick, yet Tyndale desired to work with ink and quill, cross referencing his study material and translating Hebrew by candlelight while physically suffering and awaiting execution.

On the day of his execution, a sentence the Roman Catholic Church had waited 12 years to perform, William Tyndale was tied to a stake and wrapped in gunpowder. His final plea as the flames arose were "God, open the King of England's eyes!" Shortly after, the gunpowder caught flame and blew his body apart. The man who gave us God's Word in our own language, who lived 12 years as an outlaw on the run to continue his work, the father of the English Bible, was detonated like a bomb and executed as a heretic. And what seems more sad is that most English speaking Christians today don't even know his name.

One could say that Tyndale's prayer was being answered at the time of his prayer, as the King of England was coming around to the idea of an English translation of Scripture. Of course, one that he would authorize.

It's interesting to think about what the Reformation would have looked like without William Tyndale. The leaders of the Reformation knew that an integral part of their movement was that laypeople have a translation of God's Word in their own language. That's why Martin Luther published a German translation of Scripture, known as the Luther Bible. The way laypeople were to see the corruption and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church was for them to read Scripture themselves so that they weren't dependent on a priest to tell them what God's Word said. Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest who published the Greek New Testament that Tyndale, Luther, and others used to make their translations was against the Protestant Reformation, personally debating Luther over his teachings. Yet, textual critic Dan Wallace describes Erasmus as the one who "laid the egg that Luther later hatched." Looking back now, we can see the divine providence of God through the movement. He orchestrated a published Greek New Testament which was later used by Reformers to translate the Bible and further the Biblical teaching that Justification was by Faith alone. Hopefully that's what you see through our study of Bibliology: God working through all means necessary to provide His Word to us today. Where would we be now without Desidarius Erasmus? Without William Tyndale? Perhaps the English Bible would have came later, and perhaps it would have happened after our time.

The Coverdale Bible

Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale yet not the scholar he was, published the entire Bible in English in 1535. Coverdale worked more as a collaborator than a translator given that he himself couldn't read Greek or Hebrew. He based his work on Martin Luther's German translation, the Latin Vulgate, and the work that Tyndale had already done in translating the Old Testament.

I need to introduce an idea here that we will cover in another blog, but is necessary to understand the significance of the Coverdale Bible. There are a group of books known as the Apocrypha which modern Protestant Bible translations do not include. These books were included in all early English Bibles including the King James Version. This does not mean that the translators themselves believed these books to be inspired, but did believe them to be helpful books to read. Coverdale made that clear in his translation since the books of the Apocrypha were not inter-spliced with the rest of Scripture, but were in a section all to themselves, marking a clear distinction between them and the rest of Scripture.

The section I have written on Miles Coverdale isn't long, but you will see his name pop up a few more times. Dismissing Coverdale as a mere collaborator of translations who couldn't read Greek or Hebrew really isn't a fair assessment. Coverdale was a passionate worker for the Kingdom, and was greatly used by God to put English Bibles into pulpits and in the hands of laypeople. I think Tyndale should be at the forefront of our minds when we think of English Bible history, but Coverdale should be a close second.

The Matthews Bible

Working under the pseudoname Thomas Matthews, John Rogers published his version of Scripture in 1537 containing Coverdale's Old Testament and Tyndale's New Testament. Although the Tyndale and Coverdale Bible included marginal notes and commentary, the Matthew's Bible is known for its extensive notes. Around 2000 comments were made, some rather unhelpful. One controversial note earned this Bible the title "The Wife-Beater's Bible" for his note on I Peter 3:7, commenting that if a wife wasn't obedient or helpful to her husband, he "endeavoreth to beat the fear of God into her." Thankfully, even people at the time were off-put by such a statement!

John Rogers was the first person burned at the stake under Queen "Bloody Mary" in 1555.

A lesser known Bible was made as a revision of the Matthews Bible by Richard Taverner in 1539 known as the Taverner's Bible.

The Great Bible

I once heard a King James Onlyist argue that where there was the authority of a King, there was power. Thus, the Authorized King James Version had power due to its possessing "King James" in its title and being authorized by a King. But the King James Version was not the first or second translation authorized by royalty. King Henry VIII ordered that all parishes possess a copy of The Great Bible, earning its name due to its enormous size, being 16.5" tall and 11" wide. Unnecessarily so, a chain was added to make sure no one stole it from a church.

In 1539, Miles Coverdale revised John Roger's work done on the Matthews Bible and, under the authority of Thomas Cromwell and by order of the King, published the Great Bible. This certainly can be seen as an answer to Tyndale's dying prayer despite Henry VIII’s bad motives. Regeneration and repentance was not the reason for his change of heart.

The cover of every Great Bible had a picture of King Henry VIII giving a Bible to Thomas Cranmer to give to clergymen, and in the other hand, giving a Bible to Thomas Cromwell to give to laymen. Also, the cover read "God save the King!" There was obviously a political motive here, but that does not negate God's providential blessing of His Word. Don't say "God can't use a dirty vessel." He does so all the time, and did so notably through Henry VIII.

The Geneva Bible

After Henry VIII's death, Protestants suffered greatly under the rule of Queen Mary, better known as Bloody Mary. Because of this, many fled to Geneva Switzerland, which was a safe-haven for Protestants. Miles Coverdale, now well into his elderly years, likewise fled to Geneva, and "no doubt had a guiding hand in the refugees' new translation." (David Beale, A Pictorial History of the English Bible. 30). While in Geneva, a team of scholars completed a new Bible translation called The Geneva Bible in 1560.

The Geneva Bible, through its many editions, dealt a crushing blow to Papal authority and was a beacon of the Reformation. The Scottish edition, published in 1579, eliminated the Pope's authority over Scotland and led to Parliament authorizing it as the official Bible of Scotland. Its popularity, readability, and scholarship led to it becoming the common English Bible in homes, Shakespeare's Bible, the Puritan's Bible, and the Pilgrim's Bible. Interestingly enough, in the Preface of the King James Version, the KJV translators quote only from the Geneva Bible. Ironic considering that King James himself stated, "I could never yet see a Bible translated well in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst." (Beale).

Adding to that, much like we have today with translation bias, many preferred the Geneva Bible over any other translation, even after the publishing of the King James Version. Prior to the Geneva Bible, all translations had been the work of one person. The Geneva Bible was the first entire Bible to be translated from the original Biblical languages and done so by a team of scholars. Not only that, but the font style was comprehensible and easy to read unlike the Gothic style used in prior translations. One more added feature, it was the first English Bible to have both chapter and verse divisions.

It's interesting, dare I say amazing, that today we don't have a movement of people professing to be "Geneva-Only" Christians like we have "King James-Only" Christians. And I think there are some reasons for that.

1. The Geneva Bible wasn't authorized by the King to use in churches, so it would have been illegal in many places to use a Geneva Bible. This certainly halted the spread of its use.

2. Like all other previous Bibles, the Geneva Bible had a commentary and marginal notes. Being a product of Reformation theology and coming out of Geneva Switzerland, naturally, the commentary notes were very Calvinistic, which made it unappealing across theological lines. If you're unsure of what that means, thats perfectly fine. Lord willing, we will talk about it in the future. If you have an idea of what that means and it immediately turns you off to the Geneva Bible, I would add that the King James Version translators were Anglican Calvinists. They held to the same theology, they simply didn't make it known in the notes.

If those two factors had not been present, I believe we would absolutely see a strong and even unhealthy allegiance to the Geneva Bible, even some churches being labeled as "Geneva-Only."

The Bishops Bible

Sparked to counter the Geneva Bible, the new legal Bible to use was the Bishops Bible, published in 1568. The Bishops Bible was based on its legal predecessor, The Great Bible. Since the Geneva Bible was so Calvinistic and was also used by laypeople, Bishops did not want to use it. Thus, the revision was a smaller book version than the Great Bible, and marginal notes that were not as Calvinistic as the Geneva Bible.

The King James Version

Based on the Bishops Bible, the King James Version was a 4 year project which began in 1607 and was completed in 1611. Some know the King James Version as The Authorized Version or The Authorized King James Version. The reason it's referred to as such is due to being authorized by King James of Scotland for its publishing and use in churches. It was authorized to use legally. Sharing some of the same qualities as the Geneva Bible, it was used by both clergy and laymen. Eventually, the King James Version became more popular and more widely used than the Geneva Bible.

Some have said that the King James Version is the best selling Bible of all time, but that statement is untrue. The NIV, in its 50 year existence, has far outsold the KJV, which is over 400 years old. Some have also said that it has been used the longest of any Bible, which is again untrue. The Latin Vulgate was the dominate Bible for nearly 1300 years. But, an immense amount of credit is due to the King James Version that some hesitate to give it due to its abuses. The King James Version is perhaps the most elegantly translated English Bible today, which is a testament to the goal the translators accomplished in their work. They wanted a Bible that should be read aloud from the pulpit, and a King James Version read well is beautiful and distinct among all other translations. Consider its use in pulpits today. With more literal and simpler translations in existence, many still prefer to use, read, and listen to the King James Version due to its elegance. It has likewise been used to bring many to Christ. A good, reliable translation that has been deeply trusted for over 400 years. Many of the Bible's I listed previously, some of you have never heard of. But you all have heard of the King James Version despite it being published in the same timeframe. It possesses a legacy that no other English version has or can have for the next 500 years or so.

As far as translation, nothing really stood out about the King James Version more than prior translations except for one simple feature: it did not contain a theological commentary. With the criticism of the Geneva Bible being that the notes were too Calvinistic, King James of Scotland ordered that his version not contain any notes on theology, only notes pertaining to translation. The King James translators were still Calvinists just as the Geneva translators, but they did not include their theological views in the margin. This was the main selling feature of the King James Version. That, and being legal to use in churches.

It's interesting to note that one people group who did not like the King James Version were the pilgrims. To them, the KJV was a government translation, and they much preferred their Geneva Bible. Think about it, if the White House decided today to create their own version of Scripture and called it the Joseph R. Biden Version, would you use it? If it had a photo of the president handing out Bibles on the cover such as the Great Bible did, would you see anything wrong with that? I'm not emphasizing the controversy being over who is president now. You can use any president's name. The Donald Trump Translation, the Barack Obama Bible, the George W. Bush Version. Much more, imagine if the president said their translation was the only Bible you could legally use in church. That sounds ridiculous, but that was the reality of the King James Version. Being King James Only at the time would be like saying today, "I only use the Donald Trump Translation. It's the only one that's right." Further, the King James Translators would have also been appalled by such as statement.

Government Involvement in Bible History

Perhaps you notice an inconsistency in this blog given that at the beginning I stressed my strong conviction not to allow government schools to teach Bible courses, then saw how the government played a large role in producing the Bible in our language. The Great Bible, Bishops Bible, and the King James Version are government authorized Bibles. Even when the government didn't have the purest motives, a trustworthy translation of Scripture was made.

The issue comes from the intentions of the government wanting to get their hands into the Bible. The King James Version is the perfect example of that. Most of you that only read a King James Version have noticed that where we would usually say "pastor" or "overseer," the KJV translates it as "bishop." Yet, almost none of you attend a church that has bishops. This was one of the several rules that King James demanded in the creation of his Bible version. If he lost his bishops, then he lost power over the church. Therefore, he created a Bible translation where each time a word for pastor, elder, or overseer was used, he had bishop put in its place. We saw how King Henry VIII had the Great Bible created with his picture on the front handing out Bibles because he wanted the people to know God's Word came from him. It was a power move, along with many other motives pertaining to his marital divorce and separation from the Pope.

Did God use those Bibles despite the bad motives? Absolutely He did. Does that mean that the Church hands their children over to the government to be educated on the Bible? No. Note that the government did use actual scholastic Christians in their work, and that there wasn't a whole lot of freedom to pervert God's Word with their own agendas given that Tyndale's Bible and the Geneva Bible were still circulating. If the government made big changes, English readers would have noticed and denounced it, and in fact did when updated editions had errors. That's much different than sending your impressionable children into a government classroom alone to be educated on the Bible.

Translation Theory

"Yawn..." you say mentally just reading that subtitle. Hear me out...

What does someone mean when they say "This translation is the best"? The best at what? Typically, people mean it's better than any other translation in that it is closest to the original languages. But even that is misleading.

No translation is completely literal...

Again,

no translation is completely literal.

There are translations such as Young's Literal Translation, but even it has to use what is called "dynamic-equivalence" to make it comprehensible. Dynamic-equivalence means it communicates the meaning of the text, not the word for word Greek to English parallel.

A quick illustration: I heard of a college student from China who had not yet learned our American idioms and figures of speech, and his confusion was obvious. When the classroom got too stuffy, the teacher asked him to "crack the window." He looked at her completely puzzled, asking her to repeat her request. When she did, he looked around the room, then asked, "what do you want me to use?" The teacher, also now confused, picked up on what he was asking, then clarified that she wanted him to open the window, not literally crack it.

This poor student experienced another awkward moment at dinner when joking around with a young lady. She laughed and responded, "you're pulling my leg!" He stood up abruptly, "no I'm not!"

If words were translated literally from Greek and Hebrew into English, we would be as confused as that poor Chinese student. The New Testament was written to people in a completely different culture who read Greek 2000 years ago, not in Modern English. So, before we're critical of other translations for "not being as good," we have to understand the translation philosophy. Are the translators trying to be literal and word-for-word or are they translating the text thought-for-thought? Are they switching the Greek words into English, or are they communicating the meaning of the text.

Literal translations have been done and not well received by Christians due to their difficulty. The Revised Standard Version, not to be confused with the New Revised Standard Version, is an example of this. Spurgeon said it was "good Greek, bad English."

Many believe the King James Version is the most literal translation, but it simply isn't. Let me give you an example.

Paul says "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!" (Romans 6:1-2a). But in the Greek, it does not say "God forbid." Translated literally, it says "no not never." In English, we refer to that as a double negative, which is a positive. Which would change the meaning of the text to say "What then? Should we sin more that grace may abound? Yes!" And the King James Translators knew a double negative would confuse and mislead English readers. Double negatives in Greek are emphatic, not a positive. Paul is saying "no" to the fullest extent, emphatically declaring that we should never sin more that grace may abound. Therefore, the KJV translators wrote instead "God forbid." And that, to English speakers, is very clear. We should never sin more that grace may abound. Translating the text literally would confuse and mislead us in dangerously heretical ways.

There's a helpful chart online that shows what type of translation each version is. On one side, you have word for word translations, in the middle is thought for thought translations, and on the other end is paraphrased versions.

Some want a Bible as close to the word-for-word side as they can find, and one of the best for that is the New American Standard Bible and perhaps a new version called the Legacy Standard Bible. Fine translations, but you might find that they sound a little "wooden" compared to others since they're more literal. Remember, literal does not necessarily mean "better."

Under the thought-for-thought heading is the New International Version (NIV). Even those who aren't KJV-only sometimes scoff at that, thinking it to be liberal or they heard some conspiracy about it. I won't defend the post-2011 update of the translation, but I will echo what Dan Wallace has said about the pre-2011 versions: no other translation has had the same about of work done on it. It has had more scholarly work done on it than any other version. It is not a liberal translation, and that claim is made by those who don't see the value of a thought-for-thought translation.

Between the word-for-word and the thought-for-thought categories would be translations such as the King James Version, New King James Version, and the English Standard Version, maintaining a level of literalness while being readable and comprehensible. I have many different printed versions of the Bible at home, and even more than that on my phone. But when I was 14 years old, I bought an ESV from my church. It was a new translation at the time, and I have used that same Bible ever since, even now at 30 years old. When I give a Bible to someone, it's almost always an ESV. I prefer to read God's Word comprehensibly in my own language and while still maintaining a flow of elegance.

On the complete opposite end of the graph is the paraphrase versions, such as The Message and the New Living Translation, and here is where a lot of people start getting up in arms who didn't have an opinion on other translations. If you've never read a paraphrase version, it would be very different for you. If you looked up a specific passage, you might have a hard time finding it as verses are grouped together rather than each verse listed. For example, if you searched Romans 4:2, it would be listed in The Message Bible as Romans 4:1-3. It's a paraphrase of those 3 verses. It's not really a translation. It's more like a commentary.

That is not to say that paraphrase versions have no place. They can be a great help in understanding larger passages of Scripture. In college, I had to do a paper on one of the minor prophet books and I had almost no clue what that small book was saying. I read it in The Message, and it made the more literal translations make sense. I have a cousin who works at a men's Christian drug rehabilitation center, and they give their men New Living Translations when the come to the center. Personally, I think that's a great idea.

Sometimes, we can give a Bible to someone without taking into account their reading level and comprehension, not to mention their history with reading Scripture. If we're not careful, we can be more discouraging than encouraging by assuming they won't have any difficulty when reading it. As my pastor once joked about American Evangelism, "we get them saved, then give them a King James Version and tell them to go home and choke on it." It is important to consider who it is we are giving a Bible to.

In all honesty, I cringe when I hear a competent adult say that their favorite Bible is The Message. There are contexts where Bibles like that are appropriate, but even those should be stepping stones to better translations. Paraphrase versions can also be understood as someone reading a passage, then writing it down in their own words of how they would explain it. They are opinion versions. They have a place and are good in some contexts, but better translations should be preferred and used in study.

Conclusion

I write this blog for several reasons.

1. I find this information fascinating, and enjoy learning what my earlier brothers and sisters in the faith used to read God's Word.

2. Christians need to know the blood-stained history of the English Bible. We have God's Word on our phones where we can read it anywhere we want. But it hasn't always been like that. Men hid from the government and the Roman Catholic Church for years in order to put that Bible in your hands, eventually leading to their tormenting imprisonment and brutal death.

3. Knowing this history helps you understand how translations work, which will give you guidance against slanders and conspiracies towards other translations. Like I've said already, Lord-willing, I'm going to write soon on the King James-Only controversy, and this is me laying the ground work necessary to make my argument. Many just simply believe that the King James Version was the first English Bible ever made, therefore it must be superior. But if you just read this blog without those biases, you would find it a strange thing that the 9th English Bible is misused the way that it is.

When you do your daily devotions, take time to ponder the value of the Book that lays in front of you. Consider when those Christians 1400 years ago quietly made a handwritten copy for themselves, how it was buried in the sands of Egypt, avoided being burned by followers of Islam, and its rediscovery in modern times.

Consider William Tyndale, who after 12 years on the run was betrayed in a Judas Iscariot way and handed over to the authorities. We know, due to recent events, how quickly Christians are to hand their freedoms over to the government and insist that other Christians do the same. No doubt, there were Christians who thought Tyndale's pursuits were foolish, believing their priest's translating of the Latin Vulgate was sufficient, who believed an English translation from the Greek was unnecessary. Consider how Tyndale was faithful anyway, and suffered a heretics judgement at the stake for it.

Consider John Rodgers who published the Matthews Bible, who was the first one martyred by the Roman Catholic Zealot we know as Bloody Mary. Consider how that intense persecution forced Christians to flee to Geneva Switzerland, where they published the Geneva Bible. The Bible that the pilgrims brought with them to the United States.

Consider how you obtained the Bible that sits before you. Is it a family Bible passed down to you? Is it a Bible you picked up at the book store for $20 or got for free at your church library? How easy was it for you to get it?... Do you treat it like a Bible you picked up off of a bookshelf full of Bibles for $20? Or do you treat it like a book with the history given above? Imagine what a recipient of Tyndale's New Testament thought when they held God's Word in their own language for the first time.

For more information on the topic, here are a few resources for you to consider.

A Pictorial History of Our English Bible, David Beale

From Wycliffe to King James, Dan Wallace

How We Got the Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot