"In order to properly answer the question, which is the best English translation of the Bible, this episode addresses the background of English translations of the Bible from the 14th to early 16th centuries. In 1380 John Wycliff translated the New Testament into English from the Latin Vulgate. The following century was a perfect storm of developments that spurred on direct translation of the Bible into English from Greek manuscripts. The rallying cry of the Renaissance, ""ad fontes,"" or ""back to the sources,"" coupled with the arrival of Greek scholars fleeing the fall of Constantinople in 1453, both gave impetus to translating the Bible directly from the original languages. Additionally, the concurrent invention of the printing press, together with emergence of nationalism and its emphasis on the vernacular, the language of the people (not Latin)--all these developments naturally promoted English translations of the sacred Scriptures culminating in the King James Version in 1611.
The “Best” Translation? That Depends
This opening episode bluntly states that the best translation of the Bible is a direct translation based on the oldest Greek and Hebrew copies. Presuming we're reading an English translation, the best version is one that relies directly on the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Some earlier English Bibles were translations of translations, depending on the Latin Vulgate instead of Greek and Hebrew copies. Accuracy is potentially sacrificed. Modern English translations typically use either a literal word-for-word approach (formal equivalence) or a thought-to-thought (dynamic equivalence). The advantage of the first method is accuracy, whereas the second is readability. The "best" translation largely depends on one's purposes. Those who'd like to go deeper into their study of the Bible should rely on more literal translation, whereas, for devotional purposes, a thought-to-thought version might be better. For those who'd like the best of both worlds, the NIV is probably the best. The Message is very readable, but since it is a paraphrase and not a translation, it should generally be avoided. At the very least, only use The Message in conjunction with a more literal translation.
Naturalism vs. Creationism..so what?
Naturalism is one of the primary stumbling blocks to receiving the Christian faith, and believers should avail themselves of the data of science which supports creationism. And residual naturalism in believers is corrosive of faith and distorts one's view of the sovereignty of God. I give my testimony how God delivered me from the naturalistic compromise of theistic evolution.
Natural Selection and Irreducible Complexity
The irreducible complexity of organs precludes the possibility of natural selection's ability to produce and preserve any beneficial advantage in evolving new species. The eye is a notable case in point, Darwin himself admitting its staggering complexity.
The fingerprint of God in the cell
The simplistic view of a cell in Darwin's time allowed for the possibility of natural selection working on random variations as a viable mechanism for evolution. Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis in 1957, where the order of bases in the DNA acts as a language in ultimately constructing proteins, has since made natural selection an insufficient mechanism for evolution. Randomness working on the language of genes almost always corrupts, and convinced Crick that life could not have evolved here on earth.. Crick's discovery didn't make him a theist. He kicked the can down the road, claiming aliens seeded the earth with life.
The gene: where naturalism goes to die
The simplistic view of a cell in Darwin's time allowed for the possibility of natural selection working on random variations as a viable mechanism for evolution. Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis in 1957, where the order of bases in the DNA acts as a language in ultimately constructing proteins, has since made natural selection an insufficient mechanism for evolution. Randomness working on the language of genes almost always corrupts, and convinced Crick that life could not have evolved here on earth.. Crick's discovery didn't make him a theist. He kicked the can down the road, claiming aliens seeded the earth with life.
Naturalism, a precursor of a depraved mind
The knowledge of God available in creation is inescapable, yet when men persistently and willfully reject the knowledge of God, God can give them over to a depraved mind. It is akin to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
Naturalism: is it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?
Modern-day naturalism, where it approaches willful rejection of the incontrovertible truth of God in creation, is tantamount to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Romans 1 concluded 2000 years ago that rejection of the knowledge of God in creation is inexcusable. With the exponential increase in scientific knowledge, the evidence of God in creation has exponentially multiplied, making modern man even more accountable. Might naturalism be the modern-day version of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
Romans 1: 18-23 applied to the question
The uncritical, even unscientific embrace of evolution by many scientists, illustrates the universal problem of mankind: the knowledge of God is inconvenient, and all naturally suppress the truth and replace it with futile speculations.
Evolution: the de-evolution of science
Prior commitment to naturalism in the field of biology has eroded scientific objectivity grounded in the falsifiability of scientific theory. "Punctuated Equilibrium" is an evolutionary theory in which lack of evidence can be pointed to as "evidence." The natural history presented in Genesis 1 is more consistent with the hard data of science than the interpretation of that data by evolutionists.