The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Common English Bible (2023)

This article started as a review of the CEB (Common English Bible) Study Bible. However, I found myself talking more about the translation than the study bible. The reason is that the chief reason the CEB Study Bible even exists is to be a study bible for the CEB translation. It is a good study bible (that review is still coming), but I doubt that all the stuff that makes up the study bible would have come into existence in the form and order that it has if the publisher of the CEB had not needed a study bible product to market for the translation. So, before I talk about the CEB Study Bible, let us take a look at the translation that it has to thank for its existence.

The Common English Bible is an English translation of the Bible that was first published in 2011. It is a blend translation that aims to find a happy medium somewhere between strict formal equivalence (word-for-word) and liberal dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought), utilizing the strengths of both methods while minimizing their weaknesses. The most commonly used blend translations include the New International Version (NIV), the New Living Translations (NLT), and the Christian Standard Bible (CSB, formally the Holman Christian Standard Bible, or HCSB). Of these four translations, the NIV and CSB are slightly more word-for-word while the NLT and CEB lean slightly more toward thought-for-thought. All four of these translations are, therefore, more word-for-word than the God’s Word translation, the Voice, or the Message, but less word-for-word than the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New King James Version.

The Unique Adventurousness of the CEB

Rather being a comprehensive review of every feature and facet of the translation, I want to focus on what it is at its core that makes the CEB unique, and how that uniqueness is both a strength and weakness. While the CEB is like the NIV, the NLT, and the CSB in its placement on the “word-for-word/thought-for-thought” spectrum, it is actually very different from these other three translations in other important ways. The NIV, NLT, and CSB were all commissioned by conservative Christian organizations, so despite the fact that they aim to be up-to-date with reference to scholarship and to be as accurate as can be, nevertheless one can see in close readings of them how they reflect certain traditional evangelical ideas, traditional readings of texts where scholarly opinion might actually have provided a superior alternative.

In contrast to this, the CEB exhibits a certain adventurousness in its approach to re-rendering traditional language. It does this under the banner of “clarity”. The idea is that traditional renderings of biblical texts can, over time, serve to obscure the meaning of the text rather than clarify it. We get so attached to a particular word or phrase that we stop understanding what the term means, taking its meaning to be self-evident. Or sometimes a traditional theologically loaded term takes on a life of its own and becomes more specialized in the history of Christian discourse than it may have been in the biblical text itself. So the CEB’s adventurousness, which, I argue, is its most characteristic feature, has the potential to be a great asset.

(Video) Common English Bible Translation l Review

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not.

Examples

Psalm 1:1

Let me illustrate this point with a number of examples. One of the standard talking points when it comes to Bible translations (which really is not that important, but some people have a serious fit over these kinds of things) is gender inclusive language. The CEB’s approach to gender inclusive language is generally to use it only where it is necessary for the meaning of the passage. Otherwise, it finds ways to neutralize the language. The standard example I look for this is Psalm 1:1, who first three Hebrew words translate literally “Blessed/lucky/happy is the man who”. Does this psalm apply to women as well? Of course it does. I doubt anyone worth listening to would argue otherwise. Therefore, some translations choose not to translate Hebrewish simply as “man”, realizing that the conventional way we use English is a little different at this point in history than the way most other languages throughout human history have been used. Whereas masculine pronouns and forms used to be used as gender neutral forms in English, a large portion of the English-speaking populace no longer accepts this kind of usage. So some translations account for this by translating ish in a way that includes femininity. Sometimes translations pluralize (“Blessed are those who”). The CEB translates Hebrew ish as “person”: “The truly happy person doesn’t follow wicked advice, doesn’t stand on the road of sinners, and doesn’t sit with the disrespectful.” This translation leaves no room for doubt that women are included in Psalm 1’s beatitude.

Mark 10:45

I, personally, don’t have a problem withtrying to minimize gender inclusive language generally (neither, though, do I have a problem with gender inclusive – I’m kind of chill about the whole thing, really). However, it gets a little weird when the CEB begins translating Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” as “the Human One”. For example, in CEB rendering of Mark 10:45 Jesus says, “for the Human One didn’t come to be served but rather to serve and to give his life to liberate many people.” This is just bizarre. The argument is that Aramaic bar enosh (lit. son of man) was an idiomatic way of simply talking about human beings as human beings. A bar enosh was “a human being”. Clearly, though, it’s not that simple, because while presumably bar enosh sounded kind of normal to the Aramaic-speaking Jewish ear of the 1st century, neither “human being” nor (especially) “Human One” sounds at all normal or meaningful in this passage. Rather, Jesus sounds like a Ferengi: “For the Hyoo-Mahn didn’t come to be served … .” It seems to me very likely that, despite the lack of mention of this justification in the translation’s official preface, a skittishness about gender inclusive language was part of what drove this decision. “Human One” is not in any way preferable – in style, clarity, or accuracy – to “Son of Man”. It is a strange and distracting translation decision.

The fact is that there is no way we can reconstruct the linguistic and cultural setting for bar enosh or Hebrew ben adam. The closest we can come to reconstructing it at this point is by letting the traditional rendering stand and then explaining this rendering in a footnote (or maybe letting the readers take responsibility for researching something for themselves). By the time Jesus came on the scene, the phrase had a life of its own that is totally unlike any English term we might use. In Ezekiel, we are justified in translating ben adam as “Human”, because that’s what it means. In Daniel 7:13, we could translate kebar enosh (notable as a stray Aramaic term in the middle of the Hebrew portion of Daniel) “one like a human being”, i.e., a being in a vision who looks like a human being and not a beast or an angel. Even here, however, the sudden intrusion of an Aramaic term seems to belie the presence of some significance to the term to which we are not now privy. But in Jesus’ usage, there is clearly a history behind ho huios tou anthropou (Greek for “the son of man”). Jesus is just as capable as anyone else of simply using a first person pronoun: “for I did not come to be served”. But he did not do that, so rather than pretending that there is nothing more going on here than Jesus saying “human being” as a circumlocution for himself, we need to find a way to let the mystery of Jesus’ language come across in the translation. The CEB’s eagerness to re-render every bit of traditional Christian language obscures here rather than clarifies.

(Video) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the most popular Bible translations?

Hebrew 12:2

Now, that’s not always the case, and before I go any further I want to make clear that I, personally, like the CEB, though I do not think it a perfect translation, by any means. Sometimes its willingness to revisit some old translation issues that are largely passed over in even the newest Bible translations is a real strength and results in marked improvements. One of the best examples is Hebrews 12:2. Most translations more or less follow the KJV version in understanding ton tēs pisteōs archēgon kai teleiōtēn Iēsoun as “Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith”, inserting the word “our” before faith. The KJV rendering makes it sound like Jesus is being depicted as the one who gives us faith and the one who brings that faith that he gives us to maturity. But reading this verse as the conclusion of the preceding chapter, it is at least arguable (if not far more likely) that what this verse is actually saying is that Jesus is the ultimate example of faith – all these other guys in “faith’s hall of fame” are merely foreshadowing the paradigmatic and climactic faith of Jesus. So it can be argued that inserting “our” before “faith” is a mistranslation, especially given the personal pronoun’s total absence from the Greek text (the only argument I can see for inserting “our” is the presence of the definite article tēs, which is hardly conclusive, particularly in light of the verse’s clear literary context). Even where a newer translation improves on “author and finisher” (e.g., NET Bible’s “pioneer and perfecter”), they still tend to retain the word “our”, keeping the meaning of the verse in English connected to the faith of the individual believer rather than the faith of Jesus or faith as a virtue in the abstract. The CEB, however, breaks from tradition and interprets this phrase: “Jesus, faith’s pioneer and perfecter”. This is, in my opinion, a good example of the way the CEB’s adventurousness pays off.

Romans 3:22

The CEB rendering of Romans 3:22 is also noteworthy. It revisits the issue of pistis Christou, which is traditionally translated “faith in Christ” but which, more recently, scholars have been arguing may very likely mean “the faith/faithfulness of Christ”. There are theological as well as exegetical issues at stake in the translation of this phrase, which is why it is so hotly debated in scholarly circles. But where there are significant theological repercussions, Bible translations tend not to want to rock the boat, even where evidence is strongly in favor of a revised translation (offend conservatives, who are the ones most likely to buy Bibles, and you doom your new translation to sales obscurity). Again, the CEB is more adventurous than is typical, tending toward “faith of Christ” rather than “faith in Christ” so that Romans 3:22 in the CEB reads, “God’s righteousness comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who have faith in him.” Again, this is an example where, I think, the CEB does well to go its own path in translation.

Genesis 15:6

Again, though, sometimes this adventurousness produces translations that, while novel, are not actually an improvement over the traditional understanding. Lest you think I am making too big a deal out of “the Human One” issue, consider Genesis 15:6, which, in Hebrew, is:

וְהֶאֱמִין בָּיהוָיה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶיהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָֽה
wǝheʾĕmin bǝYHWH wayyaḥšǝb̠ehā lô ṣǝd̠āqā(h)

(Video) God Is Creating Weakness In Your Life - Paul Washer

The KJV translates it this way:

“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

But the CEB translate it this way:

“Abram trusted the LORD, and the LORD recognized Abram’s high moral character.”

(Video) How To Win Friends And Influence People Audiobook

This one leaves me scratching my head, exegetically as well as theologically. First, the translation of Hebrew ḥāšab̠ as “recognize” is puzzling. To “recognize” something is to acknowledge the presence of something that already exists inherently in a situation or object, regardless of whether or not it is recognized. But typically, ḥāšab̠ is better translated with words such as “reckon”, “impute”, “think”, “account”, “consider”, “attribute”, or the like. The fundamental idea I find in ḥāšab̠ is the imposition of structure on reality by an act of the mind. The act of ḥāšab̠ creates something that did not previously exist, whether it be a totally new invention of the mind or the placing of a phenomenon within a new category. In other words, the illocutionary force of “recognize” is not at all like the illocutionary force of ḥāšab̠ (or maybe that’s perlocutionary force; I get the two confused).

Second, the translation of ṣǝd̠āqā(h) as “high moral character”, while possible (I guess), seems oddly empty of meaning. What does “high moral character” mean? As a general rule, ṣǝd̠āqā(h) designates that someone is in the right in their actions, and it is in this sense primarily a juridical term – in a lawsuit between two people, the one in whose favor the judge decides is considered ṣed̠ek̠ (“righteous” or “just”) and ṣǝd̠āqā(h) (“righteousness” or “being in the right”) is reckoned to him or her. More abstractly, ṣǝd̠āqā(h) is roughly equivalent to “justice”, especially when it designates a virtue of a society. Practically, in this context, ṣǝd̠āqā(h) means that courts are deciding cases fairly and rightly rather than in a biased manner. In all these senses, ṣǝd̠āqā(h) is focused on action rather than personality. A ṣed̠ek̠ is one who acts rightly, not a fundamentally good person (though one who acts rightly consistently would be considered a fundamentally good person because of those acts). On the other hand, to translate ṣǝd̠āqā(h) as “high moral character” focuses attention on Abram’s personality and virtue rather than his actions. The CEB says that when Abram trusted God, God saw that Abram was fundamentally a good person. This sounds suspiciously like modern Western moralism rather than any biblical concept of “righteousness”.

Theologically, is the CEB really intending to suggest that Genesis 15:6 is really about the LORD realizing that Abram is a really good person and so, presumably, worthy of the covenant made in the second half of the chapter? Obviously, that would go against the grain of the way this verse is used in Romans, but it is always possible that Paul was just using the text in a new and playful way to make his point. More problematic for me, however, is that this interpretation goes against the grain of Genesis, which is not about how the moral superiority of the patriarchs earns them favor with God over all other people. They make plenty of mistakes, just like everyone else – disqualifying mistakes, in fact. Not just Genesis but the Torah as a whole is unified on this subject: Israel are not chosen by God because of their superiority in any way whatsoever, but only because of God’s grace. If the CEB is not intending to contest this theologically, why the strange new translation? In this case, the adventurousness of the CEB backfires, producing not a fresh new reading but a jarringly wrongheaded one.

In fact, there is a reason to revisit the translation of Genesis 15:6, but it has nothing to do with whether ḥāšab̠ meaning “recognize” rather than “reckon”. It has to do with whether the subject of ḥāšab̠ is God or Abram. It is very possible that the verse in Genesis (regardless of how the LXX translates it and Paul uses it) is saying that it was Abram who considered God righteous via faith. In other words, he considered that God would make good on his promise on no other basis than faith. And while this translation reconsideration has considerable scholarly support, translating it as “the LORD recognized Abram’s high moral character” has none.

(Video) What To Do With Your Weaknesses | Joseph Prince

Concluding Remarks

Many more examples, both good and bad, could be given. Overall, I detect in the CEB not simply an eagerness but really an over-eagerness to toss out traditional renderings in favor of virtually anything. Sometimes as I have said, the traditional rendering desperately needs to be revisited (Hebrews 12:2). Sometimes there is a legitimate debate over the traditional rendering, but the traditional rendering is not clearly wrong (Romans 3:22 – is it “faith/faithfulness of Christ” or “faith in Christ” – the Greek supports either), so the CEB’s choice of a non-traditional rendering is fine but not necessarily better. But sometimes a traditional rendering is tossed out in favor of something clearly inferior. So what results from all this is a translation of highs and lows: sometimes it is really, really good, and sometimes it is really, really bad.

I cannot help but feel that this eagerness is driven by a mainline Protestant desire to distance itself theologically from their conservative evangelical brethren. It is largely American mainline Protestant denominations that commissioned the CEB (The Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the United Church of Christ).One way or another, there is certainly an eagerness to replace any word or phrase that sounds like “Christianese” with totally new language. Now, I am sympathetic to intentional distancing of ourselves from the text so that we can read it with fresh eyes. Oftentimes, that process is best accomplished by altering the way we render traditional readings. The problem is that sometimes, what we call “Christianese” is simply biblical language for which, if we try to avoid using it, we end up having to invent some other word or phrase that means exactly the same thing, and then we are left trying to define these new words or phrases. And if we don’t use biblical language to define the new replacement for biblical language, what ends up defining these new terms instead is popular religious nonsense. There is no way to avoid talking about faith, as complex a concept as it might be. There is no way to avoid talking about the atoning quality of the shedding of Jesus’ blood without doing violence to the Bible, because it is right there in the biblical text. When humanity pretends to sit in judgment over the language and images of the Bible, what is actually happening is that the Bible is sitting in judgment over humanity. But that’s a post for a different day.

I fear that my review of the CEB has come across more negatively than I really want it to. The fact is I think we as the church need the CEB because of its adventurousness. On account of the unevenness of the resulting quality of the translation, I don’t think it makes the best choice for one’s primary translation. I do think, however, that it, like the Message, makes an outstanding partner translation, something to read alongside your primary translation to give you an alternate take on the text at hand. The NIV, NLT, and CSB all make better primary translations precisely because of their conservatism and willingness to maintain contact with tradition, but they sometimes overlook places where the traditional translation really ought to be revisited. On the other hand, the CEB, more than any other translation I know of, will consistently offer an alternative translation that tries not to read American evangelicalism into the Bible. That is admirable and necessary, and it is why I say that we need the CEB.

FAQs

Is the Common English Bible a good translation? ›

The CEB is a very welcome new translation. Its readability is superior to the NRSV for the average reader. Its scholarship is based on a very qualified group of moderate, theologically diverse biblical scholars. What I have read, so far, seems not to have sacrificed any accuracy to its readability.

What denominations use the Common English Bible? ›

The Common English Bible is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of The Episcopal Church.

Which English Bible version is the best? ›

Through September 2022, the top five best-selling translations were as follows:
  • New International Version.
  • English Standard Version.
  • New Living Translation.
  • King James Version.
  • New King James Version.

Which version of the Bible is considered most influential to the English language? ›

It's clear that after more than 400 years, the King James Bible has more than proven its staying power. “[For] reading in worship services, it's much more majestic than most of the modern translations,” says Meyers. “It's had a very powerful influence on our language and our literature, to this very day.”

Who uses the CSB Bible? ›

Backgrounds represented include Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, conservative Anglican, and non-denominational Evangelical churches. Ongoing translation decisions are governed by the ten member CSB Translation Oversight Committee, co-chaired by Thomas R. Schreiner and David L. Allen.

What is the CEB Study Bible? ›

The CEB Study Bible is for encouragement and challenge, for guidance and reflection, for study and prayer: The reliable, readable, and relevant Common English Bible translation in a single-column setting. Detailed book introductions, outlines, and notes from the finest biblical studies professors.

What religion uses ESV Bible? ›

It is endorsed by dozens of evangelical leaders and used by Christians and churches around the world. The ESV has been endorsed by many pastors, ministry leaders, scholars, and authors in the US and abroad, including John Piper, R. C. Sproul, R.

What Bible do pastors use? ›

When pastors choose a Bible, what do they use? According to a new survey, it's either the New International Version or the King James Version. But among pastors in different denominations, there is little consensus.

Which Bible do Southern Baptists use? ›

Though individual Southern Baptist congregations operate autonomously and use a variety of translations, NIV is among the most popular, said Gary Ledbetter, spokesman for the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. He estimated that about 40 percent of Texas Southern Baptist churches have the NIV Bible in their pews.

Which Bible version is the most accurate and easy to understand? ›

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) holds the reputation for being the “most accurate” Bible translation in English. This translation was first published in 1963, with the most recent edition being published in 1995.

Which Bible is easiest to read? ›

The EVD uses simpler vocabulary and shorter sentences to make it simpler to understand.

Which version of the Bible is the closest to the original? ›

The New American Standard Bible is a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts.

What is the best version of the Bible to read and understand? ›

The best version of the bible to read and understand is The New Living Translation (NLT). It's an accurate thought-for-thought translation of the original languages of the Bible.

Why is the King James Version preferred? ›

The KJV "works as both a word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation," meaning it acts as both a literal translation of many of the words believed to have been used by Jesus Christ and his Apostles and accurately conveys the meaning behind those words and events, Gordon said.

Who wrote the first English Bible? ›

William Tyndale's Bible was the first English language Bible to appear in print. During the 1500s, the very idea of an English language Bible was shocking and subversive. This is because, for centuries, the English Church had been governed from Rome, and church services were by law conducted in Latin.

What is different about the CSB Bible? ›

The CSB is a revision of the HCSB. It includes an updated translation and word choices that optimize both fidelity to the original languages and clarity for a modern audience. The Translation Oversight Committee, co-chaired by Drs.

Should I use the CSB Bible? ›

The CSB is a great translation for our whole church. New Christians, young, and old will all benefit from reading a rigorously faithful and highly readable translation of God's word. The refreshing readability of the CSB will serve us in our mission to make disciples and make much of Jesus.

How literal is the CSB? ›

Research shows the CSB is both highly literal to the original languages and highly readable, achieving an optimal blend of the two.

What is a good study Bible? ›

The 10 Best Study Bibles of 2022
  • of 10. The ESV Study Bible. ...
  • of 10. The Life Application Study Bible. ...
  • of 10. Quest Study Bible. ...
  • of 10. CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible. ...
  • of 10. Compass: The Study Bible for Navigating Your Life. ...
  • of 10. Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible. ...
  • of 10. The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible. ...
  • of 10.
May 6, 2020

Does the Hebrew Bible include the Apocrypha? ›

Biblical apocrypha are a set of texts included in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, but not in the Hebrew Bible.

Do Catholics use the ESV Bible? ›

The ESV® Catholic Edition is approved by the Catholic Church. Drawing on recent archaeological discoveries, the ESV® Catholic Edition is translated directly from more reliable manuscripts of the biblical books than older English translations.

Is ESV okay for Catholics? ›

Well, for starters the ESV-CE has been officially approved by the Catholic Church.

What Bible do Mormons use? ›

The Holy Bible

They believe that most versions of the Bible are full of mistakes or deliberate changes to the original text. These changes are thought to be the cause of many of the errors into which traditional Christianity has fallen. Mormons use the Authorised King James Version of the Bible.

What version of Bible did Billy Graham use? ›

Review of the Billy Graham Training Center Bible: The text is the New King James Version, and is a red letter edition (words of the Lord Jesus in red letters).

Which church uses NIV? ›

In general, Baptists use the NIV, KJV, NKJV, or the NLT. A smaller number use the NRSV, NASB, and ESV. Since autonomy is a central conviction of the Baptist tradition, individual churches and their members have the freedom to choose the translation they will read.

What's the difference between a preacher and a pastor? ›

A preacher has a job that emphasizes more on proclaiming the words of God or the teachings of the Bible and Jesus Christ while a pastor's job is the oversight of a particular congregation.

What verses are missing from the CSB Bible? ›

The sixteen omitted verses
  • (1) Matthew 17:21. KJV: However,this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.¹ ...
  • (2) Matthew 18:11. KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. ...
  • (3) Matthew 23:14. ...
  • (4) Mark 7:16. ...
  • (5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46. ...
  • (7) Mark 11:26. ...
  • (8) Mark 15:28. ...
  • (9) Luke 17:36.

Does the CSB use Yahweh? ›

As stated in the introduction of the HCSB: "Yahweh is used more often in the Holman CSB than in most Bible translations because the word LORD in English is a title of God and does not accurately convey to modern readers the emphasis on God's name in the original Hebrew."

What Bible do Methodist read? ›

The most common Bible translations that Methodists read are the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the Common English Bible (CEB). The NRSV is more scholarly, and the CEB is more accessible to average readers. The KJV and NIV are also popular.

What is a good beginner Bible for adults? ›

Best Bible Version For Beginners: Adult

If you're an adult looking for the best bible version for beginners, I highly recommend the Life Application Study Bible NLT Version. This is the best bible to read and understand! Don't let the words “Study Bible” deter you.

Which Bible translation should I use? ›

NASB, it's the New American Standard Bible, this is a word for word translation and it's often considered to be the most accurate English translation available. Not necessarily the easiest to read, but it's a great direct representation.

What is the most widely translated Bible? ›

The original New World Translation employs nearly 16,000 English expressions to translate about 5,500 biblical Greek terms, and over 27,000 English expressions to translate about 8,500 Hebrew terms.

Is CSB easy to read? ›

The CSB's optimal blend of accuracy and readability makes it a trustworthy, easy-to-understand resource for kids to study and memorize today—and to live and share for a lifetime.

Is there a Bible written in plain English? ›

The version is based on a limited 3000 word vocabulary and everyday sentence structure. The Simple English Bible is also marketed as the Plain English Bible, the International English Bible, and the God Chasers Extreme New Testament.

What is the difference between a Bible and a study Bible? ›

What makes study Bibles different from other Bibles is the amount of additional information and extra features that are packaged alongside the Scripture text. Study Bibles generally include notes on every page, usually in the side margins or the bottom of the page.

What was the first language Jesus spoke? ›

Most religious scholars and historians agree with Pope Francis that the historical Jesus principally spoke a Galilean dialect of Aramaic. Through trade, invasions and conquest, the Aramaic language had spread far afield by the 7th century B.C., and would become the lingua franca in much of the Middle East.

What is the oldest Bible? ›

Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, Oxford.

What are the 3 types of Bible translations? ›

Dynamic or formal translation policy

Dynamic equivalence translation. Formal equivalence translation (similar to literal translation)

What is the most accurate translation of the Bible in the world? ›

The New American Standard Bible is a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts. It follows the style of the King James Version but uses modern English for words that have fallen out of use or changed their meanings.

What is the best version of the Bible to read for beginners? ›

The best version of the bible to read and understand is The New Living Translation (NLT). It's an accurate thought-for-thought translation of the original languages of the Bible.

What Bible translation should I use? ›

NASB, it's the New American Standard Bible, this is a word for word translation and it's often considered to be the most accurate English translation available. Not necessarily the easiest to read, but it's a great direct representation.

Which New Testament translation is closest to the original Greek? ›

Today, most critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as UBS4 and NA27, consider the Alexandrian text-type corrected by papyri, to be the Greek text that is closest to the original autographs.

Which version of the Bible is the original? ›

The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years.
...
Geneva Bible
Full nameGeneva Bible
AbbreviationGEN
NT published1557
Complete Bible published1560
4 more rows

What was the first language Jesus spoke? ›

Most religious scholars and historians agree with Pope Francis that the historical Jesus principally spoke a Galilean dialect of Aramaic. Through trade, invasions and conquest, the Aramaic language had spread far afield by the 7th century B.C., and would become the lingua franca in much of the Middle East.

What is the oldest Bible? ›

Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, Oxford.

Which Bible is easier to understand? ›

For many people, the New Living Translation (NLT) is the easiest version of the Bible to read because it uses normal modern English. It is an accurate thought-for-thought translation of the original languages of the Bible and is widely accepted.

Is CSB easy to read? ›

The CSB's optimal blend of accuracy and readability makes it a trustworthy, easy-to-understand resource for kids to study and memorize today—and to live and share for a lifetime.

Which Bible is easy to read and understand? ›

The Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

The ERV was written for people who find reading hard. It uses easy words and short sentences. It is one of the easiest Bible to read and understand. In the Easy Read part of this website we usually use the ERV for Bible verses.

Which version of the Bible should I choose? ›

A more literal Bible translation is not necessarily more accurate, especially if it's difficult to understand, leading modern readers to misinterpret it. For daily reading and Bible study, we recommend using a Bible translation that emphasizes the importance of being both literal and readable, such as the CSB or NIV.

How do I choose the right Bible? ›

Choosing a Bible

Know the purpose your Bible will be used for, and then choose a Bible that best fits that purpose. Get advice from experienced and trusted Bible readers regarding which Bible to buy. Shop around and stick to your budget when choosing the best Bible for you.

What is the most modern Bible translation? ›

New International Version NIV

Is the New King James Bible accurate? ›

The NKJV is described by Thomas Nelson as being "scrupulously faithful to the original, yet truly updated to enhance its clarity and readability."

Is NIV Bible accurate? ›

The new NIV retains 95% of the words of the 1984 edition, but where there are changes, it communicates the original meaning better to modern readers and more accurately than before. Let me address several issues: gender-neutral language, omission of words, and accuracy of translation.

Is the New World translation the most accurate Bible? ›

BeDuhn said that the New World Translation was "not bias free", adding that whilst the general public and various biblical scholars might assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias, he considered it to be "the most accurate of the translations compared", and a "remarkably ...

Videos

1. 4 BIBLE VERSES that CHANGED My Whole LIFE | 4 POWERFUL VERSES
(Lion of Judah)
2. His Strength Flows In Our Weaknesses (Full Sermon) | Joseph Prince | Gospel Partner Episode
(Joseph Prince)
3. THE GREATEST BIBLE VERSES (Inspirational)
(RedFrost Motivation)
4. The History of the Bible, Animated | National Geographic
(National Geographic)
5. We Are All Different - and THAT'S AWESOME! | Cole Blakeway | TEDxWestVancouverED
(TEDx Talks)
6. English Bible Translations (Part 2) | How We Got the Bible
(World Video Bible School (WVBS))
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Kelle Weber

Last Updated: 01/19/2023

Views: 6286

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (73 voted)

Reviews: 88% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Kelle Weber

Birthday: 2000-08-05

Address: 6796 Juan Square, Markfort, MN 58988

Phone: +8215934114615

Job: Hospitality Director

Hobby: tabletop games, Foreign language learning, Leather crafting, Horseback riding, Swimming, Knapping, Handball

Introduction: My name is Kelle Weber, I am a magnificent, enchanting, fair, joyous, light, determined, joyous person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.