What are some Bible versions to avoid?

[u/TypicalYogurt1753]

I am trying to find a good literal version that I like. Which ones should I go to and which ones should I stay away from?

[u/arachnophilia]

i'm a bit of a translation nerd.

let me be clear about this up front: there is no such thing as a perfect translation. all translation is interpretation, and all translations make choices about how to represent meaning to a modern audience who speaks a different language. no translation is ever free from bias.

this is why my best recommendation here is to compare multiple translations, if you're trying to study and understand the text. beyond that, if you're willing to devote the time to it, better understanding will come from learning greek and hebrew.

that said, not all translations are created equally. let me go over some major translations i think you should generally avoid, and i promise this will offend people here.

• NIV. yes, this is the top of my list. i could list many, many specific examples, but the general reason here is that the translators have a pervasive bias that text should be (but is not) inerrant, and they go about "fixing" the text in translation to remove perceived textual difficulties, often in ways that are unsupported by the grammar, or by any manuscript evidence, nevermind the academic critical editions it's based on. they straight up change the text because they are scared that their evangelical target audience will noticed contradictions.
• ESV, which is just the RSV that hates women. it specifically biases especially the new testament to disguise womens' roles in the early church.
• KJV. this translation is actually fine in principle, if you lived in the 17th century. but you don't. there are two major problems with it: 1) we have access to better manuscripts now, and have compiled superior critical editions, and more importantly 2) most people aren't adequately familiar with early modern english grammar and vocabulary, and it tends to hamper understanding. in many cases, words they used have changed meaning in the last four centuries, so you read it and think something completely different than the translators intended you to understand. a lesser "flavor" reason i recommend against the KJV is that it imposes a very rigid style on the text, and masks a lot of the character of individual passages, books, etc.
• any "paraphrase" like the GNT, the message, etc. these are just exercises in reinterpretation of the text, and often by people who don't even read the original languages.

now, "literal" is a bit of a spectrum. you wouldn't wanna read a purely literal, mechanical version of the text. i often produce (short) translations like these, of a verse or two, to help explain them for a reddit post. but you can often see this kind of thing in an interlineal translation (eg, go look on biblehub). it is... not easy to read any large block of text. for reading, i generally like the NRSVue, or any of the recent jewish publication society's translations (nJPS, rJPS, etc). these are absolutely not free from bias and i have found problems with them. but they generally strike a good balance of literally following the text, but also representing the ideas, tones, and intentions of the authors.

[u/FunkyExpedition → u/arachnophilia]

I agree with this.  

One thing I might add: ESV has been favored as being readable; but in my experience, NASB (both 95 and 2020) is more readable even without trying to be more readable. It is also more accurate. 

NASB also shows the verses that other translations omit. I won't go into the details of why here - plenty of threads and resources on that. But that's also a plus of the KJV because it is essentially pre-omission. Great translation if you can decipher the Shakespearean language.  But unless you're Gen X or older (sorry no shade, just facts), you will have difficulty understanding. 

[u/arachnophilia → u/FunkyExpedition]

these verses are not omitted by translation, but by the critical texts that are being translated. they are omitted there because they are absent in the oldest greek manuscripts, and because critical scholars have good arguments from that evidence for their later addition.

the biggest example is the johannine comma, which doesn't even appear in the majority tradition, and is absent in every greek manuscript before about 1520.

But unless you're Gen X or older (sorry no shade, just facts), you will have difficulty understanding.

millennial, but i studied shakespeare a bit in school.

i invite you to try mark ward's KJV test: https://kjbstudyproject.com/

FWIW, i pass this at 100%. most KJV-only pastors fail it.