Good News Bible Online

I found a web site with the Good News Bible. This is an often neglected  translation. Gordon Fee referred to it fairly often as is “other” go to translation as did F.F. Bruce with the NEB.

For looking up passages I find it easiest to browse using the left column. This site has book introductions, cross references where you see the arrow and a note where you see a star (*). Plus it’s formatted as it would be in a paper version. I would like to get a paper version of this translation since BibleWorks doesn’t have it. Not that I need another Bible.

If you’re unfamiliar, the GNB is also often referred to as the GNT (Good News Translation) and was formerly the TEV.

“In 1992 the ABS issued a revision of the Good News Bible with gender neutral language, and in 1995 it published the Contemporary English Version, a very similar version which is apparently meant to replace the Good News Bible.”

Good News Bible

21 Responses to “Good News Bible Online”

  1. 1 Nathan Stitt

    I don’t consider the GNB a paraphrase, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen it referred to as one. I’ve found it to be quite good, and is probably my favorite of the easier to read translations.

  2. 2 Scripture Zealot

    When referring to GNB as a paraphrase I should have said (I think?) instead of I believe as in that’s my assertion. I haven’t read enough of it to tell, but in looking at charts, it’s far down there but on the edge. I’ll change the post and not classify it. Thanks for the comment.

  3. 3 Richard

    You are right to use the word paraphrase but with a caveat. The purpose of GNB was to keep the language simple and understandable. With a restricted vocabulary not all words could be translated with perfection, but a superb job was done in keeping to the original. With this in mind it is a linguistic paraphrase, yet also trying to keep to all the “rules” of accurate translation.

  4. 4 Scripture Zealot

    Thanks Richard. It’s unique. I ordered the one pictured and it will come next week.

  5. 5 Richard

    Great, but understanding comes in comparing more than one version. As a University Tutor I’m required to handle New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I’d feel that alongside Good News one could use New International Version, as their approach (both attempting accurate translation)is different and reading both side by side gives a richer depth of comprehension. Just a suggestion!!!!

  6. 6 Scripture Zealot

    I often compare 8 at once.

  7. 7 tim

    About translations
    There are two conflicting goals. 1 translate as much as possible of the meaning of the original text. AND 2. what is the reading age of the audience eg Childrens bibles, where English is a persons second language etc etc.

    The Good News Bible / Contempory English Bible is an excellent version both for Children from about age 8 and up AND also for adults who are new christians. It is excellent for adults because it does not contain a lot of “christian” words that a non christian will not know the meaning of. As others have said they have used a smaller vocabulary, while aiming to translate the meaning of the original texts.

    IF you want as much as possible of the original meaning in an english text then the New King James is the most faithfull to the original texts. The “new” means they have “fixed” the thee, thy, thou etc etc.

    A less well known version is “An expanded translation of the New Testament” by Wuest. He is a Greek scholar and this expanded translation attempts to translate ALL of the meaning of the original text using as many words as necessary.

    The NIV and the TNIV do NOT aim to translate all of the meaning of the original text. Instead they use something called “dynamic translation”. Basically they leave out meaning. It is a sloppy translation method. While some meaning is lost or distorted, the words used are just as complicated as the New King James. So there is no benefit to the reader over the NKJV

  8. 8 Scripture Zealot

    I don’t know where you got that idea about the NIV. The NKJV for some reason doesn’t make use of the new manuscript and linguistic discoveries and studies while the NIV does with the TNIV improving on that. And the NKJV loses the literary quality that the KJV had. The NKJV is one of the least popular translations among all the Bible bloggers that I’ve read.

    As I mentioned, Gordon Fee often makes use of the GNB in his commentaries and he was also on the committee for the TNIV. You may want to read his book on translations. What meaning does the NIV leave out?

    Also, the correct term is dynamic equivalence. The NIV is a mediating translation somewhere between dynamic and formal equivalence.

  9. 9 tim


    The Translators of the NIV claim they are using more reliable manuscripts. But they dont tell you some of these supposedly more reliable manuscripts don’t include Revelation at all. They are also much newer that the texts they reject as “less reliable”. ( Older is regarded as better all things being equal.)

    WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV more than 40 !

    Missing Words in NIV

    a lengthy article on why Dynamic equivalence is a bad idea is found here for those who are interested

    On a personal note I had an NIV for years with a Thompson chain reference. As I discovered these and other missing bits of scripture I changed to a New King James.

  10. 10 Stan McCullars

    It looks like you have been reading some KJV-Only poison.

    The vast majority of manuscripts only include a small bit of Scripture and many times not even a whole book so your statement about Revelation “missing” is without merit.

    The “deleted” words and verses to which you refer were words/verses which had actually been added to the text prior to the KJV being translated. There is strong evidence for that being the case. Some of the additions were from notes in the margins of manuscripts. Notes, not Scripture.

    You might be interested in knowing that while the original Greek and Hebrew contained 612,483 words the KJV contains 790,676 which is far more than the original, the NIV (726,133), TNIV (728,393) and NLT (741,276).

    Have your sources mentioned that?

  11. 11 tim

    An interesting Note on WORD COUNT

    Basically what I am saying is that the GOOD NEWS Bible is excellent and so is the New King James. They Serve different purposes, in terms of the level of english needed to read them. Also if you are using a NIV then a New King James is not harder to read, but is a more accurate translation.

    Using more words than the original Hebrew or Greek may actually be a good thing. If you want to translate as much as possible of the original meaning. Some important Greek words do not translate directly into english. For example
    SOZO in the new testament is often translated as SAVED but it also means HEALED, and DELIVERED from demonic influence.

    So we have “great salvation” as the writer in Hebrews says.

  12. 12 Stan McCullars

    So you’re comfortable with the KJV adding to Scripture but uncomfortable with the NIV deleting words that never were in the text to begin with?

    You have an odd view of Scripture.

  13. 13 Scripture Zealot

    Look at the GNB Psalm 19:10. The GNB truncates it by combining ideas.

    I love the GNB, I’m just pointing out it doesn’t always do what you want it to.

    You could benefit from a good book on translation from some legitimate scholars.

  14. 14 Richard S.

    The GNB denies the virgin birth. Check your good news bible regarding the virgin birth and Isa 7:14

  15. 15 Richard S.

    With hundreds of English bible translations, the KJV and Douay Rhimes is still the most reliable and most accurate. Others are man’s own interpretation to support man conceived dogmas. Other bible translations omit verses and key words, modify sentences, and place doubt on the verses. If you are going to buy a bible, one of the tests I use is John 3:13. If “who is in heaven” is missing or is altered, then that bible is a counterfeit.

  16. 16 Scripture Zealot

    Check out Mat 1.23; Luke 1.34

  17. 17 chris

    The NIV and TNIV are based on older and better translations than the KJV. I grew up on the KJV but switched to the NIV when I learned this.

    Gordon Fee says the Good News Bible is excelletn

  18. 18 Alex

    This is for Mr. Scripture Zealot……….how did you like the GNT bible…..not only the translation but the bible (book) it self

  19. 19 Scripture Zealot

    Hi, my name is Jeff. I like the hard cover and the text is a good size. It has strange line drawings in it but not a lot.

  20. 20 Alex

    Thanks for your responds…….Jeff, how big is the bible and whats the fonts size of it. Are the pages thin or thick….sorry for all the questions I’m a bible freak….I love ready the bible and all of the translations (the good ones that is) that’s out there.

  21. 21 Scripture Zealot

    Sorry, took me a while to get it out. It’s like a pew Bible, but maybe thicker than most. So the pages are good thickness for a Bible. The font is medium size, just what I like. Not Giant but not small to save size. Nice black hardcover. That’s the edition I have anyway and I believe the one pictured.

Comments are currently closed.

%d bloggers like this: