Most Christians who read the Bible in English are already relying on translation. That is not a problem. It is a gift. The Old Testament was mostly written in Hebrew, with some Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Unless we can read those languages well, we meet the Bible through the work of translators.

That means the question is not whether we should use a translation. The question is how we should use translations wisely.

This article is not intended to settle every debate about English Bible versions. It is a guide for ordinary readers, Bible college students and serious Christians who want to understand why translations differ, why some people prefer one version over another and why some arguments about translations are less helpful than they first appear.

Translation Is Not Mechanical

It is common to hear Bible translations described as sitting somewhere on a spectrum between “word-for-word” and “thought-for-thought.” That language is helpful as a starting point, but it can also be misleading if we imagine translation is simply a matter of matching one ancient word with one English word.

Languages do not work that neatly. Words carry ranges of meaning. Grammar differs between languages. Idioms rarely translate literally. Word order can work one way in Greek and another way in English. Sometimes a literal rendering is clear. At other times, it becomes wooden, confusing or even misleading.

A more formal translation tries to stay close to the wording and structure of the original languages where possible. Examples often placed nearer this end include the NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV and, in many respects, the NRSV. These translations can be useful for close study because they often allow the reader to see repeated words, sentence structure and textual details more clearly.

A more dynamic or functional translation tries to communicate the meaning of the original text in natural English. Examples often placed closer to this side include the NIV, NLT and CSB, although each has its own balance. These translations can be useful for reading larger sections, public reading and helping the meaning come through clearly.

Then there are paraphrases. A paraphrase is freer again. It often restates the text in vivid, contemporary language. The Message is the most familiar example for many English-speaking Christians. Paraphrases can sometimes make familiar passages feel fresh, but they are not usually the best tools for academic study, detailed exegesis or doctrinal argument.

Why I Gravitate Toward the ESV

I often gravitate toward the ESV because I mainly use the Bible for study. The ESV describes itself as an “essentially literal” translation. That means it aims to preserve the wording and structure of the original text where possible, while still producing readable English. That suits the way I often read the Bible: slowly, comparatively and with attention to detail.

That does not mean the ESV is perfect or that everyone should use it as their main Bible. No translation is neutral in the sense of having no interpretive decisions. Every translation makes choices. The ESV has also been criticised by some readers for reflecting conservative or Reformed theological instincts in certain places. I do not think that makes it unusable, but it is worth being aware of.

For academic work, I like having a more formal translation open because it helps me ask better questions. Why was this word repeated? Why is this sentence structured this way? Why does another translation render this phrase differently? A formal translation does not answer those questions for me, but it often helps me notice them.

For devotional reading, public reading or reading with someone newer to the Bible, I may choose something more immediately readable. The best translation is not always the most literal one. The best translation is the one that fits the purpose.

The Benefit of Translation Committees

One important question is whether a translation is produced by one person or by a committee.

A committee does not guarantee perfection. Committees can have blind spots, theological assumptions and editorial compromises. But a good committee brings several strengths. It includes people with expertise in different biblical books, original languages, textual criticism, theology, English style and sometimes different church traditions. That means one person’s preference or theological instinct is more likely to be challenged, tested and refined.

This is one reason I generally trust committee translations more for study and teaching. The ESV, NIV, NRSV, NASB and many other major translations involve committees or teams of scholars. That does not mean they always make the same decisions, but it does mean the translation is less dependent on one person’s voice.

Single-person translations or paraphrases can be valuable, especially when the translator is gifted, careful and transparent. They can also have a strong and memorable literary voice. But that strength is also the weakness. The more a translation reflects one person’s style, instincts and interpretive decisions, the more cautious I become about using it as my main Bible.

Inclusive Language and the “Woke” Accusation

Some translations receive criticism because they use inclusive language. For example, where an older English translation might say “brothers,” a newer one may say “brothers and sisters” if the context clearly addresses the whole church. Where older English might use “men” generically, a newer translation may say “people,” “men and women” or “human beings.”

Some readers describe this as “woke.” Sometimes that criticism is simply a reaction against cultural change. But the real translation question is not whether a phrase sounds traditional or modern. The question is whether the English accurately communicates the meaning of the original text.

In Greek, a masculine plural form can sometimes refer to a mixed group. In older English, “men” was more commonly used as a generic term for people. In contemporary English, that can be misunderstood as referring only to males. So in some contexts, “brothers and sisters” may actually communicate the original meaning more clearly than “brothers” alone.

That does not mean every inclusive-language decision is automatically right. Sometimes debates are legitimate. Translators must be careful not to erase male-specific language where the text is actually talking about men, fathers, sons, brothers or male leadership. But neither should we assume that every inclusive rendering is ideological tampering. Sometimes it is simply good translation.

The Problem With KJV-Onlyism

The King James Version is one of the most influential English Bibles ever produced. Its literary power is extraordinary. It shaped English-speaking Christianity, literature and public imagination for centuries. I have no interest in mocking it.

The problem is not the KJV. The problem is KJV-onlyism.

KJV-onlyism is the claim that the King James Version is the only reliable, inspired or acceptable English Bible. That claim creates several problems.

First, the KJV itself is a translation. It was produced by translators using the manuscript evidence and scholarly tools available to them in the early seventeenth century. Since then, many older biblical manuscripts have become available, and textual criticism has developed significantly. This does not mean the Bible was lost until modern scholars found it. It does mean we now have access to more evidence than the KJV translators had.

Second, English has changed. Words that were clear in 1611 may be confusing now. Some words have shifted meaning. A reader can love the KJV and still recognise that many modern readers will struggle to understand it.

Third, KJV-onlyism often encourages fear and suspicion. Modern translations are sometimes accused of removing verses, attacking doctrine or corrupting the Bible. In most cases, the issue is not that modern translators are deleting Scripture. The issue is that they are working from different manuscript evidence and making text-critical decisions about what was most likely original.

Christians can prefer the KJV. They can use it devotionally, liturgically and even academically if they understand its history and language. But making it the only legitimate English Bible goes beyond what can be responsibly defended.

Why I Would Not Touch The Passion Translation

The Passion Translation is often marketed and used like a Bible translation, but it has attracted serious criticism because of its extreme expansion, interpretive additions and dependence on one translator’s theological and stylistic choices. It often moves well beyond translation into amplified interpretation.

That is why I would not use it as a Bible.

This is not a blanket rejection of expressive language or devotional paraphrase. The issue is whether a version clearly distinguishes between the biblical text and the interpreter’s expansion. When a rendering adds ideas that are not clearly in the underlying text, the reader may think Scripture itself is saying something that actually comes from the translator’s theology or imagination.

For that reason, I would not use The Passion Translation for study, teaching, doctrine, preaching or serious devotional formation. If someone finds a line in it moving, I would still encourage them to check the passage in a recognised committee translation.

Why I Am Not a Fan of The Message

I am also not personally a fan of The Message, but my concern is different.

The Message was produced by Eugene Peterson, a pastor, scholar and gifted writer. It has a memorable voice and often captures the emotional force of a passage in fresh language. Many people have found it helpful for devotional reading.

My hesitation is that I lean academically. I want to see how the text works. I want to slow down, compare words and trace arguments. The Message often gives a powerful interpretive rendering, but it does not usually help me do close textual study.

So I would not treat The Message the same way as The Passion Translation. I do not place them in the same category. The Message can be useful as a devotional paraphrase, especially alongside a more standard translation. I simply would not use it as my main Bible, and I would not build exegesis or doctrine from it.

Where Translations Come From

Modern English Bible translations usually begin with the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. For the Old Testament, translators work with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, while also paying attention to evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other ancient witnesses. For the New Testament, translators compare Greek manuscripts and early versions to determine the most likely original wording.

From there, translators make thousands of decisions. Some are simple. Others are complex. Does this word mean “flesh” or “sinful nature” in this context? Should a sentence be kept long and Pauline, or broken into clearer English? Should a metaphor be translated literally, or does it need explanation? Does “brothers” refer to male siblings, male believers or the whole church family?

That is why comparing translations can be so helpful. When several good translations agree, the meaning is usually clear. When they differ, the difference often points to a genuine interpretive question worth studying.

How I Would Use Translations Wisely

For serious study, I would use at least one more formal translation, such as the ESV, NASB, NRSV or NKJV. For readability, I would compare something like the NIV, CSB or NLT. For devotional freshness, a paraphrase may be useful, but I would keep it in its proper place.

A simple study pattern might look like this:

  1. Read the passage in one main translation.
  2. Read it again in a different kind of translation.
  3. Notice where the translations differ.
  4. Ask why they differ.
  5. Check a study Bible, commentary or original-language tool if needed.
  6. Avoid building major doctrine on one unusual rendering.

This approach avoids both extremes. It avoids the arrogance of assuming one English translation solves every issue, and it avoids the scepticism of thinking translation differences make the Bible unreliable.

So Which Translation Should You Use?

For academic study, I still gravitate toward the ESV, while keeping its possible theological leanings in mind and comparing it with other translations. For broad church use, the NIV remains helpful because it balances readability and reliability. For more formal study, the NASB and NRSV are worth consulting. For new readers, the NLT can be helpful because it communicates clearly.

Rather than asking, “Which translation is the best?” it may be better to ask, “Which translation is best for this purpose?”

For close study, use a more formal translation. For extended reading, use a readable translation. For comparison, use several. For paraphrases, use them as conversation partners, not as the final word. For disputed passages, slow down and check the evidence.

Bible translation is not something to fear. It is one of the ways God’s word has crossed languages, cultures and centuries. The existence of multiple translations should not lead us to panic. It should invite us to read more carefully, listen more humbly and take Scripture seriously enough to ask good questions.

Sources and Further Reading

  • Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.
  • Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation.
  • Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth.
  • D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism.
  • James R. White, The King James Only Controversy.
  • Crossway, “Translation Philosophy,” ESV.org.
  • Biblica, “NIV Bible Translation Process.”
  • The Lockman Foundation, “New American Standard Bible.”
  • Friendship Press, “About the NRSVue.”
  • Eugene Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language.
  • Andrew Wilson, “What’s Wrong With The Passion Translation?” Think Theology.