Tag Archives: Bible versions

It’s not your father’s Bible…

There was a time when I basically had one Bible that I used all of the time. It was a New International Version that had been given to me by some friends in California (whose pet dog had chewed up the Bible I received for high school graduation). I would always have the Bible with me and would use it for devotional reading, personal study, class preparation, as well as teaching and preaching.

Those days are gone. I think I’ve mentioned before that I’ve embarrassed myself at times by arriving somewhere to teach class or to preach and discovered that I didn’t bring a Bible with me! I no longer have a trusty, go-with-me-everywhere Bible.

Here are the main ways I read the Bible now:

  • Accordance: I use the Accordance program on my Mac for most of my work in preparing classes and studies. In the basic setup, I have 5 versions open side by side: New International Version, Dios Habla Hoy, King James Version (with Strong’s), English Standard Version, Reina-Valera 1960.
  • Bilingual New International Version-Nueva Versión Internacional: A friend in Stockdale, Texas, gave me this Bible. I use it for preaching on Sundays. There are copies of this same Bible available to those in attendance, and I can refer to passages by page number as well as chapter and verse.
  • BibleGateway.com: I use this site at times for a quick lookup of a passage. I also use it to print out the main text for my sermons. (Larger font works well for my middle-aged eyes)
  • PocketSword: I use this Bible app on the iPod when I’m teaching class at ACU. I often don’t have a convenient way to carry a full text, and this electronic version works well. Plus it’s easier for me to read without glasses. (Funny how that is becoming a recurrent theme in my choice of Bibles)
  • NIV Study Bible: Even though I have the full text of this study Bible within the Accordance program, there are times when it is helpful to look at an actual book

How about you? Has your method of reading the Bible changed over the years? Has your Bible version of choice changed at all? Do you think the next generation will be reading the Bible in traditional book form or some other format?

Mosaic Bible Blog Tour Comes To The Kitchen

OK, today is the day. The Kitchen is the official stop of the Mosaic Bible blog tour. We’ll be giving away a copy of the Mosaic Bible (which I reviewed yesterday). If you’re interested, just leave a comment saying why you are interested in owning the Mosaic Bible. I’ll draw at random from the qualified comments.

But before we get to that, we have a Q&A with Kevin O’Brien, the acquisitions editor for the project.

Kitchen: Please tell us about yourself and your role in the Mosaic project.
Kevin:
My name is Kevin O’Brien, and I am the Director of Bibles and Reference for Tyndale House. This is basically a fancy way of saying acquisitions and product development. I got to Tyndale in a bit of a roundabout manner. I have Master’s Degrees in Divinity and Theology, have done some doctoral work in philosophical theology, I am an ordained minister, have been a youth pastor, and just prior to coming to Tyndale was the book, Bible, and music buyer for Lemstone Christian Stores. (And more importantly I am married and have three kids).

My job is to both maintain our existing Bibles lines and to find compelling new Bible projects that both meet real needs and which are economically viable. This is not always as easy of a combination as it would seem. In the case of Mosaic, I received the original proposal for the project from David Sanford. I immediately appreciated the goals of the project, in fact they were very much in line with some goals that I had. At the same time, I didn’t think that the proposal as initially presented to us was quite right. Because the base idea was so compelling, I got several members of our editorial team together with others from our development and marketing teams to discuss what this Bible should look like. At the end of two days we had wrestled through the goals and the details to come up with what we believed was a viable Bible. The final form was largely put together by Keith Williams who eventually became the editor on the project. After we concepted the idea, I re-worked the proposal, sent it back to David Sanford and began the process of internally getting approval from our publications committee. As you know, Holy Bible: Mosaic is more than a bit unique, so it was not a guaranteed approval. In fact we did not get approval the first go around. We did focus group testing, made some changes and then were able to get the project approved. After approval it was my job to work with David and Keith to make sure that we had everything that we needed from a content standpoint, as well as working with our marketing, design and production teams to pull everything together. I was also able to be involved in writing some of the introduction with Keith which was a treat for me. It was a long but ultimately very fulfilling process.

Kitchen: What sets Mosaic apart from the multitude of study Bibles available today?
Kevin:
First, I would say that Mosaic is not a study Bible in the traditional sense of the term. We toyed with the idea of calling it a “Reflective Study Bible” and that kind of gets at it, but when we tested that idea we found that we were confusing people because of the standard idea of what a study Bible is. Mosaic is also not exactly a devotional Bible. It really is something in between the two. We wanted to create a Bible that would give people new ways to engage with Scripture that would really drive them back to the text. We weren’t looking to explain the text in the ways a traditional study Bible would, nor were we looking to create a 20 minute devotional experience. Both approaches are valid and useful for some people in some situations. Mosaic was not intended to fulfill those roles, however. We were really looking to create something that would be a guide for significant wrestling with the text and which would take into account the breadth and depth of Christianity since its inception. This was a very high priority for me personally and for the team as well. I think that we have come up with something that is not only unique, but which will serve the Church well for years to come. Ultimately that is the most important thing that we could do.

Kitchen: Can you describe the selection process for the readings and artwork that were included in Mosaic?
Kevin:
The selection process for the content was largely handled by David Sanford and his team. We reviewed the “project map”, made some tweaks and then it was largely up to David. Keith did the heavy lifting on our end -cutting things down to fit, choosing which of the quotes fit best, etc. We did have to scramble on a couple of things near the end when we realized that we were missing a century or two – I believe the 8th was the troublesome one. So Keith and I went to work looking for someone who would fit the timeframe as well as the content need. The art was a bit trickier. Keith and I worked alongside David’s team to come up with art that would fit the content needs, give diversity, and frankly, that we could afford – there are a lot of rights issues involved. We found things from all kinds of places including a really cool Bible from the 1800s that we have here at Tyndale. I am personally very happy that I was able to find Daniel Bonnell in South Carolina (isn’t Google a lifesaver?). I ran across Daniel’s work and knew that we had to get some of his pieces into the project. I was really excited that we got not only one but 5!

Kitchen: Why was the New Living Translation selected as the basis for the Mosaic Bible?
Kevin:
The short answer – because the NLT is the primary translation that Tyndale publishes. The NLT is owned by the Tyndale House Foundation, the non-profit foundation that owns Tyndale. It wasn’t simply that, however, as we do publish Bibles in the NIV, the NKJV, and the KJV (as well as an interlinear with the NRSV). The NLT makes a nice compliment to the variety of voices and images that we were able to include. The beauty of the NLT is that it speaks the language of the common person. It doesn’t sound like church if you know what I mean. And while we wanted to take into account things like the Church calendar and a connection to our larger shared history, we also wanted to remember that the New Testament was written in what was essentially the trade language. The first converts were fisherman and tax collectors – average Joes if you will. That was the goal of William Tyndale when he translated his Bible in the 16th century and it’s our goal with the NLT.

Kitchen: I could envision a broader Mosaic project, encompassing other types of media: music, video, etc. Has there been any talk of such an endeavor?
Kevin:
We have certainly had discussions about other media types for Mosaic. At this point we are starting a bit slow. We have devotionals for Advent and Lent (forthcoming) and an iPhone App that should be coming pretty soon. We will be looking at a variety of possibilities for further products in the future, but there is nothing definite right now.

Kitchen: If you could share with my readers one compelling reason why they should consider purchasing the Mosaic Bible, what would that be?
Kevin:
I think that the most compelling reason that I can give to buy Mosaic is this. The Christian story is much bigger than you or me. It is really easy as in the west, especially in America, to get fixated on our safe, suburban lives (OK, my safe suburban life). It is really easy to see what we have always seen and to hear what we have always heard. I grew up in a very fundamentalist Church. I was taught a lot of great things about the Bible. I memorized Scripture when I was young. But I was totally unaware of the larger swath of Church history. When I thought of Christianity in other parts of the world my thoughts turned to Sunday night slide shows from missionaries. It was totally beyond my comprehension that there are significant Christian thinkers and leaders from Africa or Asia. That I could learn something about God from art. I am very thankful for many parts of my upbringing, but the picture I had of Christianity was also very incomplete. And because of it, my view of God was much too small. I truly believe that Holy Bible: Mosaic will help to broaden the picture for many in the Church. It is the reason why I and so many others worked for over three years to get this project done. In the end it is not about me, but I am glad that I get to be a tile in the larger Mosaic of God’s redemptive plan.

Thanks for having me.

Kitchen: Thanks for joining us in The Kitchen!

The quest for the perfect version of the Bible

bible1Over on the Better Bibles Blog, Rich Rhodes talked about listening to an audio version of the King James Version. He found that the epistles were very difficult to listen to because of the vocabulary employed. He concludes his post by writing:”This is why I’m so passionate about getting a translation that speaks to the heart of English speakers.”

That’s what I find with the versions I use in Spanish. In my radio programs, I use the Spanish equivalent of the GNT, which isn’t my favorite version. I use it because it’s the easiest to understand in a spoken format like that. In our bilingual service, I use the bilingual NIV/NVI Bible because our congregation owns a number of those and most of our Spanish-speakers use them. (I like the NIV in English, but don’t like the Spanish version much at all)

Maybe I’m too picky, but I really haven’t found a Bible that truly fits what I would like to see in a Bible. For now, I settle for “the lesser of evils.”

What about you? Have you found what you’re looking for in a Bible version?

[Edit at 3 p.m. CDT: Matt Dabbs tells about a church burning all non-KJV Bibles. I’m guessing they’ve found the version they like!]


As I mentioned before, I’ve been participating in the Tyndale Blog Network, reviewing products that I receive from Tyndale. This time I’m a part of one of their virtual book tours, the Mosaic Bible blog tour. This Friday, October 16, The Kitchen will be hosting the tour, with Kevin O’Brien doing a Q&A session about the book.

In addition, Tyndale will be giving away a copy of The Mosaic Bible to one of the readers of this blog. On Friday, leave a comment indicating that you would like to be in the drawing for the giveaway.

Today’s stop on the blog tour: Internet Monk

How literal should a translation be?

bible1As I mentioned before, I’ve been participating in the Tyndale Blog Network, reviewing products that I receive from Tyndale. This time I’m a part of one of their virtual book tours, the Mosaic Bible blog tour. This Friday, October 16, The Kitchen will be hosting the tour, with Kevin O’Brien doing a Q&A session about the book.

In addition, Tyndale will be giving away a copy of The Mosaic Bible to one of the readers of this blog. On Friday, leave a comment indicating that you would like to be in the drawing for the giveaway.

Today’s stop on the blog tour: life. caffeinated.


A few months ago, we spent some time discussing versions of the Bible. I discussed, among other things, the theory of dynamic equivalence. This is the theory behind many of the Bible translations that have come out in the last 40 years or so.

Recently, I’ve been reading some articles by Leland Ryken (yeah, him again) that seek to promote “essentially literal translations” as being superior to those translated using dynamic equivalence. He makes some convincing arguments, some of which can be seen in the following articles:
On Bible Translations, Part 1
On Bible Translations, Part 2
Bible Translation Differences

I’ve had to admit that Ryken touches on some things that have bothered me over the years. Sometimes I find that “dynamic equivalence” translations seek to explain too much, that they try to pin a passage down to one certain interpretation, when the original is ambiguous enough to allow several translations. A prime example is the Greek word sarx, which the NIV translates as “sinful nature.” The word actually means “flesh,” “the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood.” I prefer a literal translation that gives us room to determine the metaphorical sense the author is using.

In many settings, I favor a “simpler” version, especially for the person who is just beginning to read the Bible. But we can’t be overly dependent on such translations. As I said before, we need to use multiple versions in our serious study of the Word. (Does that conflict with yesterday’s post?)

Do some reading on Ryken’s arguments and tell me what you think of what he has to say. (He has an entire book on the subject, but I haven’t had a chance to look at it.) How literal should a translation be?

The need to read multiple translations of the Bible

KJVGenesispg1I’ve made some changes in my approach to Bible translations. As I spend a lot of time trying to share the Bible with new Christians and non-Christians, I’ve come to value readability in a text. A book I read pointed out that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the Greek of the street, not Classical Greek, the language of the scholars. It was written to be understood by the common man. The Bible versions that we use need to understandable as well.

I will admit, though, that I don’t care for versions that do a lot of interpretation instead of translation. Obviously, some degree of interpretation is necessary, but some versions, in an attempt to simplify things, take away the reader’s opportunity to make their own interpretations.

I haven’t found the perfect Bible version yet. That’s part of the reason why I believe in using multiple versions in our Bible study. Those of us who aren’t fluent in the original languages shouldn’t tie our understanding to a single translation. Multiple viewpoints help us better understand God’s truth.