[SERay]

Having read most of them myself and comparing parts to the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, I personally find the New American Standard Version (rev. 1995) to be an outstanding translation. More and more scholars are also promoting this version based on its accuracy and being derived from the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Translated by 58 conservative scholars, it holds true to the authority of scripture and with the 1995 version, contains all the latest updates based on recent finds. The NASB does not read as fluid as some of the others since it maintains much of the Greek by order of meaning.

Following that would be the American Standard Version (1901), translated by 100 moderate and conservative scholars. Again, very accurate referencing all the current documents available at that time. Like the NASB, because it attempted to be a "word-for-word" translation it does not read as smoothly as some other translations. Its only weakness is that since 1901 we have considerably more information concerning manuscripts, texts, archaeology, and biblical geography that was available in 1901. We have also learned a great deal about the "syntax" and "idioms" of the Koni Greek language of the first century

The New International Version (1978) is probably the most popular version because it is easiest to read. NIV was translated directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts much closer to the autographa (the originally inspired writings of the apostles). The NIV was compiled by scholars from nearly every denomination to safeguard the translation from sectarian biases. However, the fundamental principle employed by the translators on the NIV was the principle of 'dynamic equivalence.' According to this theory of translating, the work of the translator is not so much to render the very words inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the form in which He inspired them, into the 'receptor' language. Rather, it is his work to discover the 'meaning' of the words, and then to convey that meaning in freely chosen words of his own and in the idiom of the day.

Critics agree that the NIV seriously weakens Scripture's testimony to the deity of Christ. Nor is the NIV faithful to its translation of key passages that set forth the propitiatory work of Christ. There is also a weakening of the doctrine of predestination in the NIV while making concessions to Pre-millennialism and Dispensationalism in its translation. Scholars report the NIV seriously weakens the Bible's teaching with respect to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. There are a host of examples in the NIV of textual alterations, freewheeling translations that have no basis in the text, insertion of the translators' exegetical opinions, imprecise and ambiguous translation, and grammatical and syntactical changes made in the text.

I do explore the NIV to some measure, but do not uphold it as the ideal study bible. I do encourage devote students to become fully acquainted with the KJV, ASV and NASB. Among these three will you find a very balanced understanding. The ideal way to study is to purchase a Comparative Study Bible like the NIV, Amplified, KJV & NASB combined version. A person can focus on the NASB but when interpretation becomes difficult, the NIV and Amplified can help illuminate.

“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and the rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of host.” (Jeremiah 15:16 KJV).