Bible 101: Understanding Our Bible Translations
Updated: 7 hours ago
An introduction to the history, differences and translation of the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NLT
Can we really trust our English Bibles?
I recently ran a church-wide poll to see which Bible translations people were using. I mean, surely we all read the same one, right?
Well, to my surprise, there was quite a variety! The majority were using the New King James Version (NKJV), followed by the NIV, ESV and NLT. And that got me thinking. Does everyone know what the important differences are? How can I explain why there are different translations? And if they sometimes use different words, or even contain verses that don't appear in another version, how can I be pastorally responsible by helping people know which one to trust?
So I've put together this article as a simple discipleship resource, explaining a little about where our English Bibles come from, the different approaches translators use and why understanding these differences can actually strengthen our confidence in Scripture. If you need help understanding some of the technical terms, please check out my glossary page.
In this article:
Before exploring the differences between Bible translations, I want to make something clear. We can have genuine confidence in our English Bibles. The purpose of looking at their differences isn't to undermine Scripture, create suspicion or suggest that ordinary Christians cannot understand God's Word without being scholars.
In fact, the opposite is true. We are extraordinarily privileged to have access to several carefully produced translations, drawing on centuries of scholarship and thousands of surviving biblical manuscripts. Although there are disagreements about particular words, passages and manuscript readings, the central message of the New Testament remains remarkably consistent. The differences certainly deserve careful examination, but they don't justify the claim that our Bibles have become fundamentally unreliable.
We should also distinguish between the authority of Scripture and the authority of a particular translation. Christians believe the Scriptures were inspired by God, but that doesn't mean every English translation is infallible in every word choice. Even highly qualified translators must make decisions about language, grammar, context and meaning.
Why do some Bibles have additional verses?
Before I compare versions, I would like to address one of the more controversial issues which is why the New King James Version contains some verses or phrases that are absent from the main text of the NIV, ESV or NLT.
We sometimes hear the accusation that modern Bible translators have removed verses from God's Word. But in several important cases, the evidence suggests that a phrase or verse entered the manuscript tradition later, rather than being deliberately removed by modern translators. In other words, the question isn't simply why the NIV leaves something out, but whether that wording was actually part of the original text in the first place.
Here's why.
The King James Version, and later the New King James Version, use a Greek New Testament associated with the Textus Receptus, meaning Received Text. This is a series of printed Greek editions developed during the Reformation, drawing predominantly on manuscripts from the Byzantine tradition. These were the most widely available at the time.
In the centuries since those editions were produced, scholars have gained access to additional and often considerably older manuscripts. Some were rediscovered or became more widely available during the nineteenth century, while important early papyri were published during the twentieth century.
Two particularly significant witnesses are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both dating from the fourth century. Other papyrus manuscripts preserve portions of the New Testament from even earlier periods.
This changed how scholars evaluated the surviving evidence. Rather than following the wording of the manuscripts available to the Reformers, most modern translation committees compare a much wider range of manuscripts and consider which readings are most likely to represent the earliest recoverable text.
It's important to understand, however, that older doesn't automatically mean better. Age is significant, but scholars also consider geographical distribution, the relationships between manuscripts and how particular differences might have arisen.
The Majority Text is another approach. It broadly follows the readings supported by the majority of surviving Greek manuscripts, many of which are Byzantine. It is similar to the Textus Receptus but not identical to it.
Consider three examples (maybe check them in your own Bible and another):
Acts 8:37: The Ethiopian official's confession of faith appears in the NKJV, but is generally absent from the main text of modern critical-text translations because its manuscript support is comparatively late and limited.
1 John 5:7–8: The extended statement explicitly naming the Father, Word and Holy Spirit together as three witnesses appears in the Textus Receptus but has extremely weak early Greek support. It is not part of the standard Byzantine Majority Text.
Mark 16:9–20: The longer ending of Mark appears in many manuscripts, but is absent from two particularly important fourth-century Greek witnesses. Most modern translations include it with a textual warning.
This does not mean the doctrines expressed within these passages are necessarily false. For example, the longer Trinitarian wording in 1 John 5:7–8 has very limited support among early Greek manuscripts, but the doctrine of the Trinity itself doesn't depend on those disputed words.
The fundamental question is not whether we like a particular verse, or whether it supports our theology, but whether there is sufficient evidence that the biblical author originally wrote it.
Word for word or thought for thought?
Before comparing these four translations, it's helpful to understand that translators don't all approach their work in exactly the same way. Some translations, such as the NKJV and ESV, follow what's often called a word-for-word approach. Their aim is to stay relatively close to the wording and structure of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, while still producing understandable English.
Others, such as the NLT, take a more thought-for-thought approach. They place greater emphasis on communicating the intended meaning in clear, natural English, even when that means expressing something differently from the original sentence structure.
The NIV sits broadly between these approaches, seeking to balance close attention to the original wording with readability.
But it's worth remembering that no translation is entirely word for word or thought for thought. Every translation involves choices, and sometimes expressing the meaning accurately requires using different words.
For example, translating an ancient expression literally might preserve the original words but leave a modern reader completely misunderstanding what was intended. So, neither approach is automatically better in every situation. That's partly why comparing different translations can be so helpful.
The versions
1. New King James Version (NKJV)
Published: 1982
Philosophy: Formal equivalence, leaning towards word-for-word translation
Textual tradition: Masoretic Hebrew OT and Textus Receptus Greek NT
The NKJV is an important translation because it preserves much of the literary style, theological vocabulary and traditional wording of the King James Bible while updating much of its older English. It has been particularly appreciated in conservative Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Its familiarity is one of its strengths: many readers have grown up hearing particular passages expressed in this way, and its generally formal translation style can be especially helpful for comparing words, structures and recurring biblical expressions.
Its most significant controversy concerns its New Testament manuscript base. By retaining the Textus Receptus, the NKJV includes readings that most contemporary textual scholars consider unlikely to have been part of the earliest New Testament text. However, it also has a particularly helpful feature: many editions contain textual footnotes indicating where there are differences. Readers may see labels such as M-Text and NU-Text. These notes make it possible to study manuscript differences without abandoning the familiar translation.
NKJV gender language
The NKJV generally retains traditional masculine expressions, such as “brethren”, “sons” and “man”, even in contexts where the reference almost certainly includes women. This isn't necessarily an attempt to exclude women. These expressions often reflect older English language use and the grammatical forms of the original languages. The difficulty is that contemporary readers may no longer understand those expressions inclusively.
For example, where Paul addresses an entire congregation, the NKJV may say “brethren”, while the NIV says “brothers and sisters”.
NKJV examples and controversies
Acts 8:37: The NKJV includes the Ethiopian official's confession before baptism, whereas most modern translations do not include it in their main text.
1 John 5:7–8: Its longer Trinitarian or three witnesses wording is probably a later addition to the text, even though the doctrine of the Trinity can be established from other passages.
Romans 16:1: Phoebe is described as a “servant”, whereas the NIV and NLT call her a “deacon”. The underlying Greek diakonos can support different understandings depending on context.
Something to remember
When reading the NKJV, make use of its footnotes. Appreciate its close attention to the original wording, but don't assume that older-sounding English or traditional textual readings must always be more accurate. This is especially important as language changes over time, so a modern reader may not interpret what is said in the same way an original reader of the older KJV naturally would.
2. New International Version (NIV)
First published: 1978; major current revision 2011
Philosophy: A mediating approach between formal and functional equivalence
Textual tradition: Masoretic Hebrew OT, informed by other ancient witnesses, and modern critical Greek NT editions
The NIV has become one of the most widely used contemporary English Bible translations, particularly within Protestant Evangelical churches. Its strength is that it seeks to retain the meaning of the biblical text while communicating in readable, natural English. This makes it particularly useful for public Scripture readings, preaching, teaching, discipleship and personal devotion. It is not designed to reproduce every feature of Hebrew or Greek grammar mechanically, but to communicate the message faithfully and understandably.
After all, Scripture was written to communicate God's truth to people. Much of the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the widely understood and everyday Greek of its time. I think that reminds us that faithful translation is about communicating meaning, not simply preserving an old style of English.
The NIV's main controversies concern how much interpretation translators should introduce to make a passage understandable. Critics sometimes argue that the NIV smooths out ambiguity or makes decisions readers ought to be allowed to make themselves. The 2011 revision also attracted considerable debate over its use of gender-inclusive language.
However, the NIV translation committee's stated reasoning was not simply cultural preference. It involved research into contemporary English usage and an attempt to distinguish passages that genuinely refer to males from those addressing humanity or a mixed congregation.
NIV gender language
The NIV generally uses inclusive expressions where the original text is understood to refer to men and women together. For example, the Greek plural adelphoi can address a mixed group of believers. In such cases, the NIV frequently uses “brothers and sisters”, instead of simply “brothers”.
The NIV still uses masculine language when referring specifically to males, and retains traditional biblical descriptions of God, including Father and Son.
Its gender-language policy is primarily intended to communicate the intended audience of the text rather than mechanically preserve older English conventions.
NIV examples and controversies
1 Timothy 2:12: The NIV uses “assume authority” in reference to a woman and a man, whereas the ESV uses “exercise authority”. The Greek verb authentein is disputed, and the wording can influence discussions about women's teaching and authority in the church.
Romans 16:1: The NIV describes Phoebe as a “deacon”, while the NKJV and ESV say “servant”. The NIV also provides a footnote acknowledging the alternative. This is an interpretive choice with possible implications for discussions about women in church ministry, although the passage alone doesn't settle the debate.
Romans 12:1: The NIV describes offering our bodies as a living sacrifice as our “true and proper worship”, whereas more formal translations express the Greek phrase differently. The NIV brings out a particular understanding of the worshipful response Paul is describing.
Something to remember
The NIV is particularly useful when communicating Scripture to a congregation, but when a single word affects a major theological argument, comparing another translation or consulting a good commentary can be valuable.
3. English Standard Version (ESV)
First published: 2001; updated in 2025
Philosophy: Essentially literal, leaning towards word-for-word translation
Textual tradition: Masoretic Hebrew OT and modern critical Greek NT editions
The ESV has become especially popular in conservative Reformed and Calvinistic circles, although its readership does extend beyond these traditions. Its strengths include relatively close correspondence to the wording of the original languages and consistency in theological vocabulary. For these reasons, it is popular among those from Reformed traditions who undertake expository preaching and theological training.
The translation is associated with the Revised Standard Version and was developed by evangelical scholars who wished to preserve a relatively formal translation philosophy.
One of the main criticisms of the ESV is that certain interpretive choices have appeared particularly compatible with conservative complementarian or Calvinistic perspectives. We should distinguish this criticism from the stronger claim that the ESV deliberately mistranslates Scripture to promote Calvinism. There is no good basis for treating every ESV rendering as doctrinally motivated but a translation can favour a particular interpretation even when the underlying Hebrew or Greek allows reasonable alternatives.
ESV gender language
The ESV's policy is generally more conservative than the NIV's. It tends to retain expressions such as “brothers”, “sons” and generic masculine pronouns. However, the ESV does sometimes use footnotes explaining that “brothers” may refer to men and women together.
An important example involves the language of sonship and adoption. The ESV translators argue that retaining “sons” in certain passages can preserve the ancient legal concept of receiving an inheritance, even though adoption is applicable to both male and female believers in Christ. This is a legitimate concern, because contemporary English might communicate the intended meaning more naturally by using “children”.
ESV examples and controversies
Genesis 3:16: The ESV's 2016 edition translated the woman's desire as “contrary to” her husband. Critics argued that this pushed readers towards an interpretation involving conflict and control. In 2025, the ESV translation committee changed this back to “for your husband”, retaining alternative interpretations in the footnote.
1 Timothy 2:12: The ESV's “exercise authority” differs from the NIV's “assume authority”. Some readers see the ESV as supporting a broader prohibition on women exercising authority over men, although the wider debate is more complex.
Romans 16:1: The ESV uses “servant” for Phoebe, with “deaconess” as a footnote alternative. This provides another useful example of how translation choices may affect readers' initial impressions of women's ministry. Was Phoebe being described as a servant or did she stand in the office of a deacon?
Something to remember
The ESV is a valuable translation for Bible students, but its reputation for literal accuracy should not lead readers to assume it is entirely free from interpretation. Even if it is unintentional, some of its translation choices may support particular conservative theology. I explain that further in the Bible 102 article. However, the Genesis 3:16 revision is an excellent reminder that even respected translation committees sometimes reconsider their earlier decisions.
4. New Living Translation (NLT)
First published: 1996; major revision 2004, with subsequent updates
Philosophy: Meaning-based or thought-for-thought translation
Textual tradition: Masoretic Hebrew OT, other ancient witnesses and critical Greek NT
The NLT aims to communicate the meaning of Scripture in clear, natural contemporary English. Although its history began with a proposal to revise The Living Bible, it developed into a genuine new translation produced by scholars working from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. This distinction is important, because the NLT is sometimes mistakenly dismissed as merely a paraphrase. It is particularly useful for new believers, personal devotional reading, outreach, family Bible reading and those who find traditional biblical language difficult to understand.
Its main criticism is that communicating an ancient text's meaning so naturally can sometimes result in the translators making an interpretive decision on behalf of the reader. Where the original expression contains ambiguity, metaphor or several possible implications, a meaning-based translation may choose one understanding and express it too clearly. This can be helpful for accessibility, but it also means that some features of the original wording may be less visible. The NLT's commitment to readability therefore requires readers to pay attention when studying passages involving complex doctrinal questions.
NLT gender language
Like the NIV, the NLT frequently uses inclusive expressions where the original meaning applies to men and women together. It also makes greater use of natural plural expressions and sometimes changes masculine-generic singular wording into language immediately understandable to modern readers.
This doesn't mean the NLT removes the biblical language of God as Father or Jesus as Son. Its translators explicitly retain these descriptions. The emphasis is on ensuring that today's readers understand the people to whom the text refers.
NLT examples and controversies
Acts 13:48: The NKJV, NIV and ESV use the language of people being “appointed” to eternal life. The NLT says they were “chosen”. While both can suggest divine initiative, “chosen” may more immediately evoke the theological concept of predestination.
Romans 3:25: The NKJV and ESV use the technical term “propitiation”, the NIV uses “sacrifice of atonement”, and the NLT refers to the sacrifice for sin. These renderings differ in how explicitly they communicate particular aspects of Christ's atoning death.
Luke 23:48: Where the original Greek describes people beating their breasts, the NLT expresses their response as going home in deep sorrow. The intention is to communicate the emotional significance of an ancient gesture rather than reproduce the gesture itself.
Something to remember
The NLT can be excellent for grasping the overall meaning of a passage, especially when the original imagery or idiom is unfamiliar. But when a particular word or phrase becomes the foundation of a theological argument, compare it with a more formal translation before drawing strong conclusions.
Egalitarian and complementarian views: what's the difference?
These two terms often arise when discussing biblical passages about men, women, marriage and church leadership.
Complementarianism generally teaches that men and women are equally valuable before God, but that Scripture establishes some distinct responsibilities or authority structures within marriage and the church. Many complementarians reserve the offices of elder or pastor only for qualified men, while debating other ministries women may exercise.
Egalitarianism likewise affirms the equal value of men and women, but generally holds that ministry roles and church leadership should be determined by calling, gifting and character rather than sex. Egalitarians frequently interpret restrictive passages in light of their historical circumstances and the wider biblical testimony concerning women in ministry.
Both positions appeal to Scripture, although they differ over how particular passages should be interpreted and applied.
It's also important to recognise that Bible translations do not fit perfectly into either category. Translators working on a single version may hold different positions, and readers do not have to accept every theological conclusion associated with a translation.
Inclusive gender language is not automatically egalitarian theology, just as retaining masculine wording is not automatically complementarian theology.
Why I use the NIV for preaching and the NKJV for personal study
For many years, the NKJV was my primary Bible. I also spent time in Christian environments where the King James Version was regarded as the only truly reliable English translation, with the NKJV sometimes accepted as a reluctant alternative. My understanding has developed considerably since then, and I've come to appreciate the value of comparing different translations. For those interested in the KJV-only debate, Mark Ward from Ward on Words has written and produced some helpful material on this subject, especially the work on 'false friends' in the KJV.
To keep this resource somewhat concise, I'll focus on the reasons for my own choices to use the NIV for public Scripture readings and preaching, while continuing to use the NKJV for personal Bible study.
Firstly, I find that the NIV offers a good balance between faithfulness to the original languages and clear, contemporary English. When Scripture is read aloud in church, I want people to understand what they're hearing, whether they've been Christians for decades or are relatively new to the faith.
I also appreciate the NIV's approach to gender-inclusive language where the original meaning includes both men and women. For example, where the NKJV uses “brethren”, the NIV will often use “brothers and sisters”. I think this better reflects how we use English today and makes it clearer that Paul is addressing the whole congregation, not simply the men. It's not about changing the message of Scripture, but communicating its intended meaning accurately.
For personal study, I still particularly value the NKJV because it generally follows the wording and structure of the original languages more closely. It also preserves traditional theological expressions and includes helpful footnotes identifying differences between the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and modern Critical Text. These can be particularly useful when examining a passage in greater detail.
Of course, the NKJV isn't automatically more accurate because it's more literal, just as the NIV isn't necessarily less accurate because it uses more natural English. Both involve translation decisions, and occasionally one will bring out something that is less obvious in the other.
That's really why I value using both. The NIV helps me communicate Scripture clearly, while the NKJV provides a useful second perspective for closer examination. Comparing them can highlight interpretive differences, prompt further study and help me avoid relying too heavily on one translation's wording.
We should be confident in Scripture, thoughtful about translation and humble about interpretation. Those three commitments belong together.
Ultimately, my loyalty isn't to the NIV, NKJV or any particular English Bible. It's to the Scriptures themselves. I want to understand as faithfully as possible what God has revealed and communicate that clearly to others.
And, that's why I'd encourage you to have two Bible translations
If possible, I'd encourage everyone to have two different Bible translations. One for everyday reading, perhaps the NIV or NLT, where you can enjoy reading Scripture and follow its message naturally. And another for closer study and comparison, perhaps the NKJV which generally follows the original wording more closely.
The advantage is that occasionally comparing them can highlight differences in translation, reveal where an interpretation has been made and encourage you to look a little deeper. It doesn't mean one is necessarily right and the other wrong, but that each can help you understand something the other might not make immediately obvious.
Want to explore this a little further?
In Bible 102: When Bible Translations Influence Theology, we'll look at six passages where translation choices can affect how we understand subjects such as God's sovereignty, marriage, spiritual authority and the nature of Christ.
© 2026 Darren Roy
Comments