[NEW] What’s the Difference Between Various Bible Versions? | other vs others – NATAVIGUIDES

The English language has changed substantially over the four centuries since the King James Version of the Bible was first published. Many people find it increasingly difficult to understand the words and may be put off by the KJV’s foreign-sounding words. We can be thankful, however, that many newer versions exist that are much more up-to-date in their wording. But this raises another issue: Which of these many versions is best for reading and studying the Bible? How do they differ? The following is excerpted from our free booklet How to Understand the Bible:

More than 60 English-language versions are available. We can divide them into three broad types: word-for-word, meaning-to-meaning (also called thought-for-thought) and paraphrased. Usually a particular Bible version will explain, on its introductory pages, which approach was used in preparing it.

Word-for-word translations

The word-for-word versions most accurately follow the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Generally speaking, the King James Version and its modern counterpart, the New King James Version, are word-for-word translations. They are readily found in most bookstores or on the Internet.

How trustworthy is the King James or the New King James Bible we have today? Other manuscripts discovered since the King James Version was translated show it to be extremely reliable. For instance, when the King James Version is compared with what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, “the King James Bible is 98.33 percent pure [in terms of comparison]” (Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1974, p. 263).

In the New Testament the sheer bulk of thousands of texts (4,500 Greek manuscripts) means that many minor variations among the manuscripts will be found. The King James Version, for example, is based on the majority of the authoritative Greek texts.

About 98 percent of the known Greek manuscripts agree with the basic text of the King James Bible. Even the variations that do exist rarely affect the basic meaning in the remaining 2 percent of those manuscripts. The text of Scripture has been preserved and transmitted over the centuries remarkably well.

The Old Testament books are equally trustworthy. Although a few textual errors are to be found in some of the manuscripts used in translating the King James Bible, comparisons with other Bible versions can easily clarify most problems.

As an expert on textual criticism remarked: “If any book from ancient times has descended to us without substantial loss or alteration, it is the Bible. The Bible is the best-attested book from the ancient world! This has prompted Sir Frederic Kenyon to say: ‘The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world'” (Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 1963, p. 120).

Meaning-for-meaning versions

The accuracy of a version is obviously of utmost importance. Although the King James Version contains some mistakes, to establish sound doctrines the first choice of versions should be a more literal edition such as the King James or New King James Version.

What about the meaning-to-meaning versions? They can be valuable in putting the Scriptures into more understandable wording. For example, the New King James Version of Hebrews 2:17-18 , describing why Jesus Christ came to live among mankind as a flesh-and-blood human being, reads: “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”

The New International Version, a meaning-to-meaning translation, has: “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

The latter explains the point more clearly for most readers today, although the former is a more direct translation of the original language. So, when the text is not clear, many times a modern meaning-to-meaning translation can help. The Revised English Bible, Good News Bible and New Living Translation are other popular meaning-to-meaning translations.

A meaning-to-meaning translation is also helpful in conveying the point of ancient figures of speech—idioms—that would not make sense to us in modern language. Consider the modern American idiom “kick the bucket.” This phrase may not be around centuries from now, and someone translating it then might need to use the word “die” instead—a meaning-to-meaning rendering rather than a literal one. Ancient Hebrew and Greek had such expressions as well, and in such cases a meaning-to-meaning translation is very helpful.

In general, meaning-to-meaning versions use more up-to-date language and thus are easier to understand—although, again, they are not the best choice for establishing doctrine because they at times involve some interpretation of what the original writers intended to say.

Paraphrased Bibles

Paraphrased Bibles, such as The Living Bible or The Message, also can be useful. Their goal is to make the Bible even easier to read in modern language. We should be cautious in working with these, however, because the authors exercised considerable “poetic license” in interpreting biblical terms and passages according to their own personal religious ideas.

Paraphrased versions can be consulted to better grasp the story flow but should not be relied on exclusively to establish doctrine. They should be considered inadequate sources for accurately determining the meaning of any text.

Which version of the Bible should you buy? The King James Version, although both accurate and popular, is increasingly difficult to understand simply because the English language has evolved considerably over the 400 years since its publication.

The meanings of some of its words have changed over time. Many readers find the archaic language distracting and difficult to follow. For this reason material produced by the United Church of God, publisher of this magazine, most often uses the New King James Version. This version, while retaining much of the beauty of the original King James wording, is more readable and is still usually faithful to the original text.

Modern translations like those mentioned above are helpful for comparing and clarifying the meaning. Many people find a parallel Bible, which contains two or more versions side by side on the same pages, to be helpful. Indeed, even apart from that it’s best to consult multiple versions in studying the Bible, but one will likely be your primary version.

Regardless of the Bible version you choose, the most important factor is that you actually use it. A Bible should be considered an investment in which a little more expense up front will pay off in the long run. Consider buying a version with wide margins that will allow you to add notes from your personal study over the coming years. Although more expensive, a higher-quality, leather-bound Bible will last years longer than a hardbound or paperback volume and should become a lifelong companion.

Many Bible versions are now available as part of Bible software packages or for free viewing on various Internet sites. With these, you can compare between different versions nearly instantaneously.

Infographic: Types of Bible Translations
There are three main types of Bible translations: word-for-word, thought-for-thought and paraphrase. Which one do you choose to study God’s Word and learn His way?

In the movie “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure,” the slacker protagonists Bill and Ted offer this advice to the world: “Be excellent to each other,” and “Party on, dudes!” But are Bill and Ted running afoul of a rule regarding reciprocal pronouns?

‘Each Other’ Is a Reciprocal Pronoun

The phrase “each other” is known as a reciprocal pronoun because it shows a bidirectional action. For example, if Bill and Ted are being excellent to each other, that means Bill is being excellent to Ted, and Ted is being excellent to Bill. They’re practicing what you might call excellence reciprocity.

‘One Another’ Is a Reciprocal Pronoun

But Bill and Ted aren’t talking about being excellent just to Bill and Ted; they want each person in the world to be excellent to every other person. According to some grammarians, if we’re talking about more than just two people, we should use a different reciprocal pronoun: one another. In other words, Bill and Ted should more properly have said, “Be excellent to one another.”

Buy Now

As an Amazon Associate and a Bookshop.org Affiliate, QDT earns from qualifying purchases.

English is unusual in having more than one reciprocal pronoun to choose from. It doesn’t set the record for the most reciprocal pronouns, because Korean has three, but most languages have just one. Chinese, Finnish, French, Classical Greek, German, Hebrew, Japanese, Russian, and American Sign Language, among others, all have just one reciprocal pronoun. Some languages, such as Spanish, Shoshone, and West Greenlandic,  don’t even have that many. They use the same pronoun as both a reflexive and a reciprocal, so that the same sentence could mean either “We see each other” or “We see ourselves.”

‘Each Other’ or ‘One Another’?

The trouble with having a choice of reciprocal pronouns to use in English is that English speakers (and speakers of other languages, too) can’t stand to have more than one word with the same meaning. They’ll look as hard as they can for a meaning difference, and if one doesn’t exist, someone will create one.

It’s happened with “healthy” and “healthful,” with “continuous” and “continual,” and many others. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (MWDEU for short) the first person to state that “each other” should refer to only two people and that “one another” should refer to more than two was George N. Ussher, in 1785.

Grammarians Disagree About ‘Each Other’ and ‘One Another’

Since then many grammarians have weighed in, some accepting the rule, others rejecting it. Even today, there isn’t agreement. Some sources that accept it are Garner’s Modern English Usage, and “The Grammar Bible,” by Michael Strumpf and Auriel Douglas. Some that don’t are the second edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage, and “Grammar Without Grief,” by Martin Steinmann and Michael Keller.

There are even sources, such as Ronald Wardhaugh’s “Understanding English Grammar,” that propose a version of the rule that goes like this: Use “one another” or “each other” when you’re talking about more than two people, but when you’re talking about just two people, use “each other.” That rule will never catch on. People don’t like rules that say option A is available in situation A, but option B is available in situation B and situation A. They prefer clean, two-way distinctions: option A in situation A; option B in situation B; end of story.

‘Each Other’ and ‘One Another’ Are Often Interchangeable

Despite these rules, both “each other” and “one another” had been used to refer just to two people, and to more than two, hundreds of years before anyone tried to force a meaning distinction on them.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this quotation from Shakespeare, with “one another” referring to two people: “When we are married, and have more occasion to know one another.” MWDEU has this example from Samuel Johnson, with “each other” referring to more than two people: “Sixteen ministers who meet weekly at each other’s houses.” As MWDEU puts it, “the rule restricting ‘each other’ to two and ‘one another’ to more than two was cut out of the whole cloth.”  For some more informative discussion of this issue, read Gabe Doyle’s post on “each other” and “one another” on his blog, Motivated Grammar.  

The Safest Choice Is to Follow the Rule

Since there never was any historical support for this rule, but since there are people who believe in it today, should you follow it? Personally, I’d say no, but the good news is that it’s an easy rule to follow if you choose. Unlike using “whom” or saying “It is she,” limiting “each other” to two people and “one another” to more than two isn’t going to make your writing sound unnatural. Both sound fine in either situation, whether you’re observing or ignoring the rule.

Don’t Use ‘Each Other’ or ‘One Another’ as a Subject

While we’re on the subject of “each other” and “one another,” we do recommend following one restriction on their use. Specifically, don’t use them as the subject of a clause. For example, suppose Bill thinks Ted is awesome, and Ted thinks Bill is awesome. How could you write that in a single sentence? “Bill and Ted think each other are awesome”? “Bill and Ted think one another is awesome”? No. People do write sentences like that, and you may have heard people speak them, and you may have even spoken them yourself—I know I have. But it still sounds awkward, for reasons that are unclear.

MWDEU notes that “each other” as a subject hardly ever occurs in edited writing, and suggests that it might be because of confusion over whether to use a singular or a plural verb. It just goes to show that even when there is a logical need for a particular word, there is no guarantee that a word will be created to meet that need. This is especially frustrating, given all the words that are created when there isn’t a logical need for them, such as “irregardless” and “conversate.” The best you can do in this situation is to use what the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls the “split reciprocal” construction, and say “Bill and Ted each think the other is awesome.”

Compound Possession

That’s all for reciprocal pronouns, but I do have one last thing to say about “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”: The title is a great illustration of the rule for compound possession, which I discussed in episode 75!

‘Each Other’ Is Always Two Words

And finally, one more note for the people who are just learning English. “Each other” is always two words.

Resources

1. Maslova, Elena & Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.. 2011. Reciprocal Constructions. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2011. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/ Accessed on 2011-06-22.

2. “Each other.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage. 1994.

3. Doyle, Gabe. June 6, 2011. Reflexive battle: “each other” and “one another.” Blog post. http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/reflexive-battle-each-other-and-one-another/ Accessed June 20, 2011.

“Each Other” image from ReciteThis.com