English Versions of the Bible

First: Qualifying Bible Translations

Those who hold to the inerrency and divine authority of the Holy Bible need to carefully qualify modern translations - most of which cannot be recommended. This evaluation is NOT simple or intuative.

Must be Literal translation style, NOT Dynamic Equivalent
- Why? - Literal vs Dynamic
Must use Original gender or be gender-accurate, NOT use inclusive gender
- More - The Colorado Springs Guideline. - Comparison Table
Must Include, NOT omit, disputed passages supported by Majority Text
- More - MT Inclusion vs Exclusion
Must be a Bias-free Translation, NOT denominationally specific
- More - Denominational Bias

Comparison Tables

The King James Version and TR-based Bibles

Modern Literal Translations

Modern Dynamic Equivalent Translations

Modern Paraphrases

King James Family (TR)

Version	Translation	Gender	Notes
The King James Bible (KJV), 1611	Literal	Original Gender	Original 1611 KJV Oxford 1769 and Cambridge 1873 are the normally used editions. - Full Review -
Young's Literal Translation (YLT), 1862	Word-for-Word Literal	Original Gender	Exact same OT & NT source mss as KJV - Full Review -
Variorum KJV, 1881	Literal	Original Gender	1611 KJV published for notes regarding alternate manuscripts, other language versions, and critical text analysis (circa 1881). - Full Review
New King James Bible (NKJV), 1982	Literal	Gender Accurate	New translation uses both TR and CT - Full Review -
Greens' Literal Translation (LITV or KJ3), 1976/1985	Word-for-Word Literal	Original Gender	From Green's Interlinear, Exact same OT & NT source mss as KJV - Full Review
Logos Bible Software Pure Cambridge Edition (KJVPCE or KJV 1900), 2009?	Literal	Original Gender	Based on the Cambridge editions, essentially unaltered. - Full Review -
Literal Standard Version (LSV), 2020	Word-for-Word Literal	Original Gender	2020 version based directly on YLT Uses broader Majority Text mss sources - Full Review

[Top of Page]

Literal, Formal Equivalence, Essentially Literal

Version	Translation	Gender	Disputed Passages *Score	Notes
American Standard Version (ASV), 1901	Very Literal	Original Gender	82%	"Very Literal" translations can be more difficult reads. - Full Review -
Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1946	Literal	Original Gender	82%	Revision of the ASV
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), 1989	Literal	Gender Inclusive	94%	"Formal Equivalence" but gender inclusive
New American Standard Bible (NASB 1995)	Literal	Original Gender	100%	Highest personal recommendation for a modern translation - Full Review -
English Standard Version (ESV), 2001	"Essentially Literal"	Gender Accurate	82%	Very smooth readability, but 'slightly' less literal. - Full Review -
Lexham English Bible (LEB), 2011	Very Literal	Gender Inclusive	94%	A digital-only Logos Bible version designed to be used in the Logos environment. Based on the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament and Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Old Testament.
New American Standard Bible 2020 (NASB)	Literal	Gender Accurate	94%	- Full Review -
Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), 2024	Literal	Original Gender	100%	Uses original units of measure, Yahweh for YHWH. - Full Review -

[Top of Page]

Dynamic Equivalence, Thought-for-Thought, "Balanced," "Modern Language"

Not Recommended - Non-Literal Translation Style

Version	Translation	Gender	Disputed Passages *Score	Notes
New English Translation (NET)	Equivalence	Gender Inclusive	94%	Recommended as a reference for extensive translation notes - Full Review -
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)	Equivalence	Gender Accurate	100%	Revision name-change to CSB version
Christian Standard Bible (CSB)	Equivalence	Gender Accurate	94%	Based on the HCSB 2009 ed, first pub 2017
New International Version (NIV), 2011 ed	Equivalence	Gender Inclusive	94%	Formally rejected by Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) for Gender Inclusive language.
New International Readers Version (NIrV)	Equivalence	Gender Inclusive	47%	3rd Grade reading level
Good News Translation (GNT)	Equivalence	Gender Inclusive	82%	Also known as Today's English Version (TEV). Originally (as NT only), Good News for Modern Man.
Contemporary English Version (CEV)	Translation	Gender Inclusive	82%	4th Grade reading level
New Living Translation (NLT), 1996	Equivalence	Gender Inclusive	94%	Originally intended as a revision to TLB paraphrase, but became an original-language translation
New Revised Standard Version, Update Edition (NRSVUE)	Equivalence	Gender Inclusive	94%	Translation style: "as literal as possible, as free as necessary"
New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)	Equivalence	Gender Accurate	82%	Catholic

[Top of Page]

Paraphrases

Not Recommended - Non-Literal Translation Style

Version	Translation	Gender	Disputed Passages *Score	Notes
The Living Bible (TLB), 1971	Paraphrase of ASV	Inconsistent Gender Handling	88%	By Kenneth N Taylor, initially written for his family devotions. Used extensively by Billy Graham (600k NT), 2-year U.S. best seller
The Message (MSG), 1993	Paraphrase of ASV	Inconsistent Gender Handling	59%	In my personal opinion, this is a terrible paraphrase and an offense to Christians

[Top of Page]

*Scoring for Disputed Passages

For the 3 Passages supported by Majority Text

Mark 16:9-20 (End of Book of Mark), John 5:3-4 (Narration of angelic healing at the Pool of Bethesda),
John 7:53-8:11 (The woman caught in adultry)

For each passage:

Include 3pt
Omit, but include full text in footnote 2pt
Omit 0pt
Footnote exists 2pt
No Footnote 0pt

For expanded text of I John 5:7-8 (not supported by Majority Text)

Include in body or in footnote 2pt
Omit 0pt

Numeric Scoring:

All points for the 4 verses considered are totaled together for a best possible total of 17.
For each version, this total is divided by 17 for a % score:

17/17pts = 100%
16/17pts = 94%
15/17pts = 88%
14/17pts = 82%
10/17pts = 59%
8/17pts = 47%

There are many other verses which vary between the KJV and modern CT translations, but these versions are usually
all handled the same way, using the Critical Text reading, with most being footnoted. These verses were not used for
"scoring" but are well-represented by how the four passages above are handled.

[Top of Page]