What Is the Best Bible for Preaching in Church?
What Is the Best Bible for Preaching in Church?
Is the most literal Bible translation necessarily the best one to preach from? After an extensive comparison of English translations, the answer may surprise you.
Walk into almost any discussion about Bible translations, and someone will eventually insist that the most accurate Bible is the best Bible. Usually, the English Standard Version (ESV) or New American Standard Bible (NASB) enters the conversation. Both are excellent translations, and both are valuable for serious Bible study. But does that automatically make either one the best choice for preaching on Sunday morning?
That question launched an extensive examination of English Bible translations, comparing accuracy, readability, theological precision, and how naturally the text communicates when read aloud. The investigation produced an unexpected result. The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) gradually emerged as a leading contender, yet one important consideration ultimately challenged the entire ranking: What if the best Bible for studying Scripture isn't necessarily the best Bible for preaching it?
First, What Does “Accurate” Actually Mean?
Many Christians assume Bible translations fall somewhere along a simple scale: the more literal the translation, the more accurate it is. The easier it is to read, the less accurate it must be. But translation doesn't work quite that way. The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, languages that don't always express ideas the way modern English does. They use different sentence structures, figures of speech, idioms, and grammatical conventions.
Consider the Hebrew expression describing God as being “long of nostrils.” Translated word for word, that sounds rather strange in English. Yet the expression means that God is slow to anger (Exodus 34:6). Which translation is more accurate: one that reproduces the Hebrew words or one that communicates what those words mean? Clearly, the meaning matters.
But the opposite problem also exists. Sometimes biblical authors deliberately use imagery that carries theological significance. Replacing that imagery with an explanation may make a verse easier to understand while obscuring something important. In 1 Peter 2:24, for example, the Greek word xylon can refer to a tree, wood, or a wooden object. The CSB renders it as tree, while the NIV and NLT use cross. The latter translations correctly identify the instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, but tree also makes it easier to recognize the connection with Deuteronomy 21:22–23 and the curse associated with someone being hung on a tree, which Paul develops in Galatians 3:13. The theological connection comes from the broader scriptural context, not merely from the dictionary definition of a single Greek word.
Neither translation approach automatically wins. Accuracy means faithfully communicating what the biblical author intended, not simply reproducing the greatest number of original-language words. Sometimes the most faithful English is more literal, and sometimes it isn't.
Narrowing the Field
With that distinction established, the investigation turned to a practical question: Which translation best serves a congregation gathered to hear Scripture preached? Consider a typical Sunday morning. Some listeners have studied the Bible for decades, while others have only recently become Christians. Some are visiting church for the first time. Children, teenagers, adults, and seniors may all be listening to the same passage. The translation needs to communicate across that entire room.
Several criteria became especially important: faithfulness to the original meaning, understandable English, natural public reading, restraint in interpreting disputed passages, and preservation of important biblical connections. These comparisons were qualitative rather than a controlled listening study involving congregations, but they revealed meaningful differences in how translations communicate when read aloud.
The criteria also complicated the assumption that the most formally equivalent translation must be best. The NASB is particularly useful for detailed study because it frequently preserves features of the original wording. The ESV likewise retains many traditional expressions and literary connections. Those are genuine strengths, but a translation that is especially useful for close textual examination is not automatically the easiest to follow when someone hears an entire chapter read aloud.
Consider Romans 12:2. The ESV uses the expression “by the renewal of your mind,” while the NASB 1995 says “by the renewing of your mind.” Both are understandable and preserve the biblical concept well. The NLT expresses the instruction more conversationally, telling readers to let God transform them by changing the way they think. The NLT's wording is more immediately accessible, though it also makes the divine agency more explicit than the Greek construction itself. The example illustrates the tradeoff: formal wording can preserve a compact theological expression, while conversational wording can communicate its practical meaning more directly. Neither choice automatically establishes greater accuracy.
It is also worth recognizing that the NASB has undergone revisions, including the 2020 edition, which differs in some of its English wording from the NASB 1995. Treating every edition as though it reads identically would be misleading.
Neither the NASB nor the ESV was rejected as inaccurate or unsuitable for preaching. Rather, under criteria emphasizing immediate comprehension and conversational delivery, three other translations became the primary contenders.
The New Living Translation (NLT) stood out for its natural English. It frequently communicates biblical ideas in language that sounds like ordinary conversation, although it sometimes explains or resolves an interpretation within the translation itself. The New International Version (NIV) offered a strong balance of accuracy and readability, preserving many important biblical expressions while remaining accessible, though some passages contain sentence constructions that sound less natural when spoken. The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) proved especially interesting because it often preserves original-language imagery and theological terminology while remaining surprisingly readable.
The contest became much closer than expected.
The Translation That Started Winning
As the comparisons continued through narratives, poetry, prophecy, the Gospels, and Paul's letters, the CSB repeatedly demonstrated its strengths. Consider Philippians 2:7, where Paul describes Christ's voluntary humility using the Greek verb kenoō, meaning to empty. The CSB retains the expression that Christ “emptied himself.” The NIV communicates the idea as making himself nothing, while the NLT explains it in terms of giving up divine privileges.
Those differences matter. The CSB preserves Paul's metaphor and leaves the preacher room to explain precisely what that self-emptying involved. The NLT communicates a particular understanding of the passage more directly, but that explanation moves beyond the metaphor itself. The meaning of Christ's self-emptying has been the subject of considerable theological discussion, and the surrounding verses describe his humility through taking the form of a servant and becoming human. The NLT does not explicitly teach that Christ surrendered his divine nature, but its explanatory wording makes an interpretive choice where the Greek retains an expression requiring careful examination. The CSB's restraint is valuable because it allows that expression to stand without prematurely settling its meaning.
Another example appears in Romans 7:15, where Paul describes the conflict between what he wants to do and what he actually does. The NIV follows a somewhat inverted sentence structure, while the CSB expresses the contrast in a more familiar English order. In this case, the CSB is not only textually transparent; it arguably sounds more natural. That challenged another assumption: more formally equivalent translations do not necessarily have to be harder to understand. The CSB was increasingly difficult to beat.
But the NLT also demonstrated why its approach should not be dismissed. In Luke 14:26, Jesus uses the shocking language of hating one's family in connection with the cost of discipleship. The NIV and CSB preserve that language, while the NLT communicates the comparison as loving one's family less than Jesus. The NLT makes the intended priority easier for a modern listener to grasp, although it reduces the force of Jesus' deliberately startling expression. Both approaches offer something important.
By the later stages of the comparison, the CSB had become the narrow favorite, with the NIV close behind and the NLT remaining the strongest option for immediate comprehension. Then came the question that changed the discussion.
Isn't Explaining Scripture the Point of Preaching?
Throughout the investigation, translations received considerable credit for preserving Greek and Hebrew details that would otherwise need explanation. But why should that necessarily determine which translation is best for preaching? Isn't explaining Scripture one of the preacher's primary responsibilities?
Nehemiah 8:8 describes the reading of God's Law accompanied by explanation so the people could understand what was being read. In Luke 24:27, Jesus explains the Scriptures concerning himself. In Acts 8:30–35, Philip encounters an Ethiopian official reading Isaiah. When asked whether he understands the passage, the official acknowledges that he needs someone to guide him, and Philip proceeds to explain the good news about Jesus. Paul likewise instructs Timothy to preach the word with correction, rebuke, encouragement, and patient instruction (2 Timothy 4:2).
These passages do not prescribe a particular English translation method, but they establish something more fundamental: Reading Scripture and explaining Scripture belong together. A pastor is responsible for studying the text, understanding its historical setting, examining significant words and expressions, identifying theological connections, and communicating the author's intended meaning. No English translation eliminates that responsibility. Even someone preaching from the NASB or ESV must explain difficult passages, unfamiliar customs, figures of speech, and theological concepts.
This also reveals an important distinction between independent Bible study and congregational preaching. Someone studying Scripture privately may benefit enormously from a translation that preserves as many original-language features as possible. Those features can help the reader identify repeated words, literary connections, and interpretive questions. But preaching is not independent study. The congregation is listening while someone who has studied the passage guides them through its meaning. A translation particularly suited to close examination may therefore differ from one particularly suited to public reading and explanation.
The question isn't which translation leaves the pastor with the least work. It is which translation best communicates Scripture to the congregation while the pastor faithfully performs that work. And that changes how the NLT should be evaluated.
Why the NLT Deserves Another Look
One of the NLT's greatest strengths is that it sounds like natural spoken English. That may seem like a small advantage until we remember what preaching actually involves. A sermon is not merely a written document being examined silently; it is spoken communication. People listen to Scripture, follow an explanation, consider its meaning, and are challenged to respond.
When the English of the biblical reading flows naturally with the English of the sermon, listeners don't have to continually adjust between different styles of speech. The reading and the exposition can work together seamlessly. That is especially valuable in a congregation containing both experienced Bible students and people who are encountering Scripture for the first time.
The most experienced Bible students should not necessarily determine the level of English everyone else must understand. A Sunday congregation is not a graduate-level biblical studies classroom, nor should it need to be. Making Scripture accessible to newcomers does not prevent mature believers from receiving substantial theological instruction. Profound biblical truth does not become shallow simply because it is communicated clearly.
And accessibility doesn't require sacrificing theological depth. A preacher can read a passage from the NLT, then explain a significant Greek or Hebrew expression using the original language and a more formally equivalent translation. When a particular word carries an important connection to another passage, that connection can be demonstrated. When the NLT makes an interpretive choice that obscures or potentially misrepresents the original, the difference can be identified and explained. In other words, the NLT can provide accessible public reading while careful exposition supplies the necessary precision.
There is also an important difference between explaining Scripture and continually repairing the English of a translation. Explaining a Greek expression, historical custom, or theological connection is part of faithful exposition. Correcting a questionable translation decision may also be necessary. But repeatedly stopping to untangle unfamiliar sentence structures is a different matter. The preacher's time is better spent helping the congregation understand the biblical message than explaining why an English sentence sounds unnatural.
That is not an excuse for careless interpretation. Quite the opposite. The NLT is a genuine Bible translation, not merely a paraphrase, but its meaning-oriented approach sometimes incorporates interpretations that deserve examination. A preacher should never assume that a translation's explanation is automatically correct simply because it is easy to understand. The original text remains the standard. Yet neither should an accessible translation be penalized simply because it communicates an established meaning in ordinary English. After all, the purpose of translation is to communicate.
Does That Make the NLT the Best Bible for Every Church?
Not necessarily. The CSB remains an excellent choice, particularly for churches emphasizing detailed, verse-by-verse exposition. It preserves many important biblical expressions while maintaining generally readable English. The NIV continues to offer a strong balance of clarity and textual faithfulness. The ESV and NASB remain valuable for serious study and can certainly be preached effectively, especially by pastors who communicate their wording clearly. And the NLT's explanatory choices mean that responsible preaching requires careful comparison with the original text.
There is no perfect English translation, nor is there one translation that will be equally suitable for every congregation, every preacher, and every purpose. But there is a compelling case for the NLT as a primary preaching Bible, particularly in churches where accessibility, natural spoken English, and faithful exposition are priorities.
The congregation should not need an advanced biblical education simply to understand the English being read aloud. At the same time, the congregation should receive more than an easily understood reading. It should receive careful teaching that explains what Scripture means and why it matters. Those responsibilities complement one another.
So, What Is the Best Bible for Preaching in Church?
The investigation began with a question about translation accuracy and nearly ended with the CSB as the winner. But evaluating translations without fully considering the purpose of preaching left something important out. A church Bible must faithfully communicate Scripture, and it must also be understandable to the people hearing it. The pastor's responsibility is not to select a translation that makes explanation unnecessary, but to study Scripture carefully and explain it faithfully.
For that reason, the NLT deserves serious consideration as a primary pulpit Bible, even when more formally equivalent translations remain essential study companions. The goal isn't to make Scripture sound more complicated than it is, nor is it to simplify away the depth of God's Word. The goal is understanding.
The best Bible for preaching isn't necessarily the one that leaves the pastor with nothing to explain. It's the one that helps the congregation understand what the pastor is explaining.
