If you look at Thursday’s Christianity 201 post, you’ll see that I used a total of seven scripture verses. The verses were ones that my wife and I discussed that were then located using Yahoo’s search engine and the website BibleHub.com which seems to have priority status with Yahoo. Sometimes a search engine is more forgiving if you get one word wrong than the Bible programs online; the exception being BlueLetterBible.org which — until they destroyed it with the most recent update — allowed a margin of error. (Why can’t they just leave these Bible search programs alone?)
Each of the seven verses from yesterday is quoted from a different translation. Bible Hub is somewhat conservative in its choices, for some of what’s listed below, I would have had to change over to BibleGateway.com
I do intentionally mix it up a bit knowing that I have a variety of readers, and also wanting the very familiar verses to be seen in a different light. I also want to send a message that, as Augustine himself was quoted as saying in the marginal notes to the KJV, “There is much to be gained from a variety of translations.” (He said it in different words, that was my NLT-like update.)
When I want a very rigid adherence to structure, I go with the NASB. But you have to remember that if you really heard the English words spoken in the order they appear in the Greek or Hebrew texts, it would sound, at worst, like gibberish, at best like Yoda. Their word order is completely foreign to speakers of 21st Century English. So what we call “Formal Correspondance” in translation is a term that should best be applied loosely.
When I want to refresh the meaning, I use The Voice or The Message or the Common English Bible. Although I don’t use The Amplified Bible as often, it would fit this category. I have great admiration for what Eugene Peterson did, as both a Hebrew and Greek scholar doing a one-man translation (not paraphrase; please don’t use that word); and I’ve also become a regular reader of David Capes at The Voice Blog, who gets into translation issues that warm the heart of this follower of people like John Kohlenberger and The Mounce Brothers (who are actually a father and son), and the missionary context translation issues raised by Eddie & Sue Arthur. (Anyone wishing to debate the subject of translation needs to have some exposure to non-English Bible editions.)
However, occasional use of the KJV can be equally arresting to readers.
When I wonder if readers might question a verse if it’s changed up too much, I consider the NIV a relatively safe standby.
Although all my blogs have an absolutely horrid relationship with Tyndale Publishers, I do like the NLT (New Living Translation) and use it about as often as the NIV. I like that it’s plain language backed by the authority of the 128+ translators who worked on bringing the old Living Bible “up to code” as I describe it.
I am not a fan of the ESV. Sorry, Reformers and Calvinists. It’s not clear at all in places. I also have problems with Bibles created by publishing companies and not Bible Societies, etc.; so I’m not a fan of the NKJV or the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) either; the latter, I feel tainted somewhat by Holman’s historical association with printing the Masonic Bibles. I’ve never even acknowledged the MEV at the C201 blog.
On the other hand, this (sponsored) article at Challies.com did warm me to the HCSB text itself, which my wife uses. She also finds the Young’s Literal Translation useful.
I should say that I do occasionally run with the ESV anyway, just to try to keep the Calvinist readers I have at C201, and I also will use the NRSV at times just to find a point of reference with my mainline or inter-confessional readers.
I’m sure I’ve missed something. I am keeping an eye on the NET translation. And if you’re interested, I did a different type of translation breakdown here six months ago you might enjoy if you’ve read this far.
(And no, that’s not my picture below, but the warp of the shelf looks familiar.)
Thinking Out Loud 
Your Response (Value-Added Comments Only)