Where might the Common English Bible find itself, if anywhere on the list?

My initial inclination would be to include it with # 4, 6, 7, and 8.

Is it more suitable than say the NLT for study?

I think so, depending on what kind of study one is doing. If one is studying for basic themes, the NLT is probably better. But if one wants to do study of smaller language units such as clauses and words, then I’m guessing the CEB would be better.

I think it would be a nice combination to use both versions for devotions and personal study. I’m guessing that the CEB might have an edge on the NLT for group Bible study, again, depending on what kind of study is done.

I would also like some clarification on what criteria makes some versions better for study than others. This is not to dismiss any of the choices but rather to gain a better understanding by what is meant by “best study version.”

Good question, Adam. For me, a Bible version must be written in contemporary English in order for it to make it on to this list. By contemporary English I mean English which is currently spoken and written by native speakers of English. Then, typically many people want a study Bible to be in English which is more literary than the easier-to-read versions. Often a Bible written in contemporary literary English better reflects concordance of terms in the original biblical texts. (The desire for concordance must, however, be tempered by an even higher desire for accuracy. The biblical languages, like all languages, sometimes have words which have different meanings in different contexts. When words have different meanings in different contexts, there should not be concordance, which can communicate that the meaning is the same in each context when it actually is not. But there should be concordance of a word in translation whenever the meaning of that word is the same.)

A Bible version with such concordance, sensitive to meaning differences in different contexts, allows for careful study of biblical words, each occurrence of “flesh” when it means ‘people,’ for instance.

I also like a study Bible to have extensive footnotes explaining translation choices made by that version’s translation team. The NET Bible stands at the top of the list for number of such notes explaining translations choices.

Where, if anywhere, would the NIV2011 rank on this list?

Substitute NIV2011 for TNIV, which is no longer published. Of course, the NIV2011 was not yet available in 2008 when the blog post above was written.

Best Literal: Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), KJV, ESV (most Tyndale translations are pretty literal, like the KJV. I do not use the KJV, although I use the NKJV and ASV sometimes which are revisions. YLT is the most literal I have come across. I do not own a physical copy, but I like to reference it. ESV is my favorite literal translation because it still sounds very natural, but it is not as literal as YLT or KJV).

Best For General Reading: God’s Word Translation (GWT), NIV, ESV (God’s Word Translation is great for reading. My edition has a single column layout. It is translated in a way that is most familiar to modern English readers than any other Bible I have read very much. NIV and ESV are my preferences. NIV is what my church has used even as I was growing up. I memorized a lot of scripture in it. ESV I have found great for reading as well).

Best for Children: NIrV, NCV (These were what I used as children–yes I’m that young–and I really liked them both. I moved from NIrV though because it seemed too simplified. My mom got me a youth Bible in the NCV translation–before I was really a youth–but I very much enjoy the translation even now for comparison.)

Rich