A Closer Look at the New BibleGateway.com

Earlier this week, something about Clark Bunch’s review of the new Bible Gateway site really resonated, so with his permission, we’re sharing it here. You can also click the title which follows to read this at source. You might also want to visit the site, The Master’s Table.

Bible Gateway Update

by Clark Bunch

In addition to the occasional book review (I posted one earlier this week) I have reviewed a couple of Bibles in the last year at the request of Bible Gateway. Regular readers know about the Bible Gateway Blogger Grid and as a partner The Master’s Table posted reviews of The Illustrated Holy Bible for Kids and The Jesus Bible. A few weeks ago Bible Gateway asked Blogger Grid members to review the new website design at Bible Gateway. The new design has since rolled out so if you use that resource or follow our links from here then you have probably seen the changes.

New Design

According to Bible Gateway, the new design offers a cleaner, easier to read screen. To me, it looks like they took controls from the top and moved them to the left side of the screen. I don’t see anything that makes it easier to read. The difference was supposed to really shine when you start adding side-by-side parallel translations on the same screen. So let’s add NKJV next to the ESV text in each format and take a look:

Classic View

That’s a two translation parallel view on the classic layout. I have scrolled down the screen a bit, rolling the website banner and user controls off the top of the screen. The Bible text takes up nearly the full width of my laptop screen. Now look at the same text side-by-side in the new format:

New Design

The control panel to the left collapsed which makes the text field a little wider. But look at all that business to the right, and at how narrow the fields are that contain text. I could add three if not four translations side-by-side on the classic site before they get that narrow. This makes parallel study more difficult, not easier, in my humble opinion. Side by side translations, which is how I’ve been writing my sermons for years, was easier on the classic site than the redesign. Which is ironic considering the Bible Gateway claims.

Now, this next difference is going to be a picky little thing but it’s my picky little thing. On the left-hand sidebar of this blog (and if you’re reading this in an email or blog aggregator now would be a good time to pop in to the actual website) you see the Bible Gateway verse of the day. The text is in ESV followed by a reference and that reference is linked to that verse on the Bible Gateway website. Here is how the verse of the day for today’s date would appear on the classic site:

Classic View

And here is the landing page, the very first thing you see, when visiting Bible Gateway today:

New Design

In addition to the fact that the page just doesn’t look as good, the reference appears before the verse. Like I said, a picky little thing. But that’s how we normally display verses in print. If you share a verse on social media, make a graphic for a slideshow or write a verse at the bottom of a get well soon or birthday card, we write the verse and then add a reference. It would be the same if displaying a quote; first the words and then an attribution. If you click the link in the left-hand sidebar it will take you to the new Bible Gateway site not the classic site. The classic site is an option you can choose – at this time. When I visit the regular site, without getting technical, it recognizes me and displays the ESV text since that is my preference. If I click the link in the upper left of the screen for classic site those recognition protocols are no longer in place and the site defaults to NIV.

So, to copy and paste the verse of the day the way I like it and in ESV, I have to go to the website, click on classic, change the translation and then copy the verse and reference. I have discovered a work around but it still involves a few steps. I now go to the regular site, copy the reference and verse, paste it into my editor twice and then cut it so the verse comes before the reference. Like I said, I know it’s a picky little thing but it’s my picky little thing. And it’s not the only reason I prefer the classic view, namely that the side-by-side translation parallel was better before.

For the time being the new format of Bible Gateway and the classic site are both available. I don’t know if it will always be like that or just while users compare the two and get a feel for the new design. While I’m giving the new site design a negative review let me be clear: I have been using Bible Gateway for years and will continue to do. I will continue to include links on the sidebars and link scripture references I use when blogging to Bible Gateway. It has been and continues to be an excellent resource available anywhere I have my laptop or phone.

One final thought: since I mentioned my phone there at the end I was going to include a screenshot of the phone app. When I opened Bible Gateway on my Samsung (Android) smart phone, I noticed this little detail:

The reference for today’s verse shows two verses, Matthew 5:14 and 16. But on the website, new and classic formats, only verse 14 is displayed. The mobile app shows verses 14 and 16. I don’t know what that means but it is interesting. To me anyway.

How and Why I Use Different Bible Translations Online

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.)