All new Answerbag! Check out the changes
All new Answerbag! Check out the changes
by Roger Kovaciny on October 10th, 2005
My qualifications to answer: I have taught Greek for ten years and Hebrew for eight, while speaking English, Ukrainian, or Russian. I'm working on a Greek textbook and am full-time proofreading the newest Bible translation from the original languages into Ukrainian for the Ukrainian Bible Society. (I'm an American.)
The best single English translation to use to get as close as possible to the exact sense of the original is "The Comparative Study Bible" by Zondervan publishing house in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The reason is that it has four of the best translations in parallel columns. These are the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Amplified Bible and the King James Version. Other four-columns are good, but this is the best single volume--and it has both Testaments at an affordable price.
When I look into this, I find out almost as much as when I consult the original languages. No single translation can give you all the nuances, but four good ones come as close as possible.
by borasalama on July 9th, 2007
With the question phrased as it is the answer has to be none. The original texts have not been found anywhere. You need to look at which translation is based on the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts available. Then you have to consider how authentic and reliable these manuscripts are and also how accurate is the translation and whether the translation leans towards conveying the meaning or just translating the text word for word.
by kimwally on June 21st, 2007
new world translation si without doubt the most accurate
translation with Goodspeed coming second also the 21st century new testament is excellent. Of course for those who are biased -nothing can be said to convince them of the truth.
by madmat on July 8th, 2007
It is always a good idea to consult a few various versions of "accurate" translations of the bible to understand the authors' correct meaning. However, that being said, one can come up with some very suspicious questions when examining current translations. First and foremost, why have virtually all translations, (except the NWT) eliminated God's name, YHWH,(or Jehovah in English) out of the bible, when it's plainly found in the original Hebrew text over 7,000 times? (sorry folks, no denying that fact, it's in the dead sea scrolls) Second, most current translations change their rules of grammer to fit their agendas. (example: compare John 1:1 and Acts 28:6- you'll notice that the NAS version adds an "a" in Acts 28 before "God" but does not in John 1:1 )If Bible translations have made these common errors, what other errors might be possible? I'm still trying to validate whether or not Jeopardy asked this question but regardless, I think that the New World Translation is the most honest attempt at a very accurate translation.
by pugwashjw65 on January 6th, 2006
A claim has been made by TulsaDavid that the New World translation has been altered. The cl,aim is not backed up and should be regarded as simply a singular opinion. The New World has replaced the personal name of Almighty God, Jehovah, back to the 7000 places in the Bible where it belongs. Jesus is given full credit as God's son and now reigning king in heaven. It is Jesus who will judge us, not his Father. John 5;22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son,
The claim that the N.W.T. does not give full credit to Jesus is just another ploy to prove the Trinity concept.
This argument will continue till ad infinitum in this system of things. But for those who have not yet made a decision...Look to the scriptures.
by Anonymous on June 16th, 2007
On such a topic it is easy to be biased because if a person loves God's word our feelings and our likes and dislikes come into play. Here is an interesting point that was made on the Jeopardy game show that asks the very same question.
Recently on Jeopardy, one of the questions was “What is the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?” No one got the correct answer, so Alex Trebek said “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, printed by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.”
Book: “TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT”
Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington
The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn’s book are:
- The King James Version (KJV)
- The Amplified Bible (AB)
- The Living Bible (LB)
- The New American Bible (NAB)
- The New American Standard Bible (NASB)
- The New International Version (NIV)
- The New World Translation (NW)
- The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
- Today’s English Version (TEV)
Excerpts from his book:
Chapter Four: Examples of translation of the Greek word “proskuneo”, used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one’s knees, bow before. Scriptures discussed include Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt 2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, “... in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God.” Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use “worship” where the NW uses “did obeisance”: “Here all translations except the NW have recourse to “worship” -- a rendering which makes no sense in this context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NW.”
Chapter Five: A discussion of Philippians 2:5-1 1: “The NW translators... have understood “harpagmos” accurately as grasping at something one does not have, that is, a “seizure.” The literary context supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV’s “thought it not robbery to be equal)...”
Chapter Seven: A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: “It is a tricky passage where every translation must add words.” “The LB translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB -- the four Bibles that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most significant tendentious material. Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding the innocuous “other” in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators... But the NW is correct. “Other” is implied in “all”, and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit... It is ironic that the translation of Col. 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the “added words” are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek.”
Chapter Eight : A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1, 2: “... the position of those who insist “God” and “Savior” must refer to the same being... is decidedly weakened.”
Chapter Nine: A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: “so we must conclude that the more probable translation is “God is your throne..., “the translation found in the NW... It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred.”
Chapter Ten: A discussion on John 8:58: “Both the LB and the NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this.” “There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around “I am.”
“The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of “I am”, and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate.” “All the translations except the LB and NW also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators.” “No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression “I am,” which, if you think about, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language.” “The NW... understands the relation between the two verbs correctly... The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the... NW.”
Chapter Eleven: A discussion of John 1:1: “Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates “a god.” “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. ... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek” “Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John.”
“John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel.” “All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun.”
Chapter Twelve: A discussion of holy spirit: “In Chapter Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many uses and nuances of “spirit” and “holy spirit.” The NW scored highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative and demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun “holy spirit,” and in adhering to the indefinite expression “holy spirit” in those few instances when it was used by the Biblical authors.”
Summary: “... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals.” “Jehovah’s Witnesses... really sought to reinvent Christianity from scratch... building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this practice can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant translations.”
“...Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament.”
Commenting on bias in translation : “To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their “truth” enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations or accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith.”
For those that want to add this book to their library, it’s available on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Trutjr Translation-Accuracy-Translations-Testament/dp/0761 825568
by IntellectualCritic on July 18th, 2005
Young's Literal might have the most accurate word-for-word translation, but that is rarely the best way to translate. Often there is no simple translation of a word or phrase, and a lot of effort goes into picking the "best" way to communicate foreign content and intent. Honest scholars sometimes disagree on the best or most correct phrasing. Especially where there are multiple legitimate meanings in the original, a single translation is often inadequate. The Amplified often puts in multiple words to reflect these cases.
There is evidence that the King James was written to be read aloud and the phrasing and word selection emphasized recitation and memorization. The New American Standard emphasized literal meaning over readability and the New International emphasized modern English readability over "literalness" but both insisted on accuracy and are very good. These three are widely respected, and employed for their translation known and recognized experts in the original languages.
The Holman Christian Standard Bible is new and is supposed to be good, but I have not used it enough to recommend it. (It uses contractions: something I was taught indicates poor writing, but I believe the HCSB's goal is to translate to modern English speech vocabulary rather than textbook technical usage.)
Those who prefer a paraphrase rather than a translation claim that the paraphrase is a "thought-for-thought" translation rather than word-for-word. This is a risky position - it assumes the paraphraser accurately captures the "thoughts" - something very hard to quantify.
Accuracy will depend on how usage varies with location and with time. Because of the differences I have mentioned, it is not likely that any one translation will be best for every verse. Many different translations have different strengths. I decline to judge any one the "most accurate."
The "New World Translation" is not known to have employed any experts in the original languages and is only accepted or recognized as a translation by one relatively small group (Watchtower society/Jehovah's Witnesses). According to the page referred by another poster <edit: the quote I previously cited has been pulled from the site referenced by another post.>
I sometimes study with a person who has some training in ancient Hebrew and teaches New Testament Greek for a major university. He is appalled at the departure of the NWT from accepted translation practices.
by Anonymous on July 9th, 2007
Of course it's the NWT. Mr Singwell, perhaps you need to do some 'rigorous research'. Would it matter to say I'm a scholar? Not likely. You should ask some more Jewish, Christian and secular scholars - in noted universities in Athens and Israel. Ask what they use to teach Biblical text - you may be surprised.
by Gone to The Secret Garden on August 20th, 2008
The Zondervan direct translation is the most accurate
in my opinion. The Original text is just above the
translated text. It is sweet reading.
Of course with the direct translation the original sentence structure is different than English. For example
in English we may say; He is here. In Hebrew it would say, He here. A lot of the, what I call fill in words,
are not there. Still it is very sweet reading.
by Bibleography on February 4th, 2008
The New World Translation is.
by Bea_flores on July 13th, 2007
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures edited by the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower Bible and Tract Society it the most accurate. It uses the name of Jehovah or Jeweh in Hebrew Aramaic over 7000 times. Psalms 83:18 for example says,
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth".
Also think twice before judging the bible on accounts of John 1:1. Is that the only scripture that comes to mind? What about the things Jesus would say such as in Mathew 6: 9 and 10 “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth". Whose name has to be sanctified? Jehovah's name, thank you and have a nice day. Remember to read the Holy Scriptures daily this way your faith can complement your knowledge and your knowledge your actions.
by Eponymous on July 9th, 2007
One of my favorite translations of the Bible is the the American Standard Version (ASV 1901) of the Bible, from 1901. This serves as the precursor for the NASB (New American Standard Bible), which was written many years later (1974, edited in 1995). The ASV 1901 is the version where the authors, in the preface, stated:
<quote>
I. The change first recommended in the Appendix - that which substitutes "Jehovah" for "LORD" and "GOD" - is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people; -- not merely the abstractly "Eternal One" of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of those who are in trouble. This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.
</quote>
Yes, the original authors of the ASV, the source for the NASB, couldn't find justification for removing God's name. The NASB authors didn't even bother to offer an excuse for removing the name. In fact, one of the authors of the NASB said a big factor in the decision to remove God's name was that it wouldn't be marketable if they left it in.
While any work of man is bound to be imperfect, the New World Translation (NWT) is a consistent Bible throughout both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. It also is correct in about 7000 places more than any other Bible published this century. That says a lot, and easily makes it the best translation available today.
by Stormarm 10 months ago
You can learn enough Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew in a year to decide for yourself, but of course then, you won't need a translation.
by oscar lover on October 3rd, 2008
hey i us the new world translation. hey iam a jehovah's witnesse to.
by phyllis on August 20th, 2008
I like NIV study bible. Easy to understand great footnotes
by kimwally on July 30th, 2007
Hmmm, let me ask you a question, have you ever heard of
the 'comma Johanneum' found in the KJV at 1 John 5:7?
Another, if I may,have you heard of or read the book "what Is the best New Testament" on page 87 there is published a test by a Professor E.C.Colwell who ,in 1947 -before the NWT existed- tested a number of translations as to accuracy. He used 64 problem texts in the book of John and gave them a score according to their accuracy. The most accurate was Goodspeed with a score of 64. Following was the Westminister (catholic)58, American Standard 58 ,Revised Standard 56, Moffatt's 56, Confraterity 35 ,Knox 33, Douay 25 and King James 0.
Instead of making outrageous ,biased and unfounded claims about any translation of the Bible and those who
appreciate it's value -may i suggest you obtain a copy of "Truth in Translation, accuracy and bias in English translations of the New Testament" Jason David BeDuhn - available at Amazon.This man is a well recognized Scholar who does not share your view of the NWT -so I am not sure where you get the 99.999+ with exception of two men in 50's and 70's from!
kind regards kim
by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 21st, 2007
There are a number of good translations around, most of which have been quoted above. The most important thing to look for in a translation is who translated it. The names of the translators should be at the front, so that anyone can contact them, should they have any questions about their work. Usually, in most translations, there are hundreds of people who work on a translation, being divided up into work groups on each book of the Bible. Then these are checked by others in the translation team, and the results hammered out, ironed out, agreed with and disagreed with until a decision is made. Even after that, because the names are known, people can, and do, make submissions for revisions. Some of the revisions are accepted, some are not, but the questioner will always be answered.
If the names of the translators are not in the front of the translation, and you cannot find out who they are, do not accept that translation as trustworthy, because you cannot know what qualifications, if any, the translators have. One particular group, the translators of the New World Translation, said they wanted their names kept secret for humility. Not so. The names have been leaked, and NONE of the so-called translators had any qualifications to do a translation. In fact, when challenged with a simple Greek translation that a 1st year Bible student could do, one of them could not.
Stick with a recognised translation, one that has been translated by people of training and repute, and which is respected throughout the Christian community.
I know that, no matter which denomination I attend, whatever translation they prefer is well attested and accurate.
by Anonymous 6 months ago
I've seen a few comments about the NIV "missing things out" - what exactly ? Personally I use the NIV as I like the way it reads. I also use http://bible.cc/ as this gives the Greek/Hebrew as well and I haven't yet found anything missing.
by Anonymous 7 months ago
Charles Taze Russell
Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell once sued a Baptist pastor, Rev. J.J. Ross for libel after the minister published a tract entitled, Some facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Russell (Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 42-44).
According to a New York newspaper, The Brooklyn Eagle, (11 January 1913, p. 7) Rev. Ross, the pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, accused Russell among other charges of teaching, "the destructive doctrines of one man who was neither a scholar nor a theologian," (Ibid).
Russell's attorney was none other that Joseph F. Rutherford who was to become the Society's next president after Russell's death in 1916.
Russell lost this case and was unable to prove libel in Rev. Ross's accusations that Russell, "...never attended the higher schools of learning; knows comparatively nothing of philosophy, systematic or historical theology and is totally ignorant of the dead languages," (Ibid; emphasis added).
A portion from the legal transcript reveals a small amount of the overwhelming evidence that helped Rev. Ross win in court.
The following is taken from the transcript as Rev. Ross's attorney, Mr. Staunton cross-examining C.T. Russell in the case Russell v. Ross.
Question: (Attorney Staunton) "Do you know the Greek Alphabet?"
Answer: (Russell) "Oh yes."
Question: (Staunton) "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"
Answer: (Russell) "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
Question: (Staunton) "Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?"
Answer: (Russell) "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."
Question: (Staunton) "You can't tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?"
Answer: (Russell) "My way ..." [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain]
Question: (Staunton) "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
Answer: (Russell) "No."
Fredrick W. Franz
In another court case in 1954 in Scotland, Fredrick Franz [at the time a Governing Body member and later the Society's President] was placed on the witness stand to give testimony for the defense in a case questioning whether a Jehovah's Witness could be drafted into the military in Scotland.
The following is from the typed Pursers Proof, of the case, Douglas Walsh v. James Latham Clyde, representing the Minister of Labour and National Service, Court of Sessions, Scotland. Fredrick Franz is being cross-examined.
"Tuesday, 23rd November, 1954
"Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
"A. Yes
"Q. Do you also know and speak Spanish, Portuguese and French?
"A. Spanish, Portuguese and German; but I have a reading knowledge of French.
"Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
"A. Yes, for use in by biblical work.
"Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures [New World Translation]?
"A. Yes"
(Purser's Proof pp. 7-9).
However, the very next day, government attorneys decided to check Franz's linguistic abilities with a simple test. He was placed back on the stand and asked:
"Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
"A. I do not speak Hebrew.
"Q. You do not?
"A. No.
"Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
"A. Which?
"Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis?
"A. You mean here?
"Q. Yes?
"A. No. I won't attempt to do that."
(Ibid, pp. 102-03).
by Love on December 15th, 2008
Christians have been around for 2,000 years. Does it really make sense that about 100 years ago some men who didn't even know the Greek or Hebrew languages (as spoken in their own words under oath) would translate the most accurate bible, the NWT????
It's obvious that Jehovah's Witnesses have tried to overwhelm the answer to this question with their own bias views about their own bible- the NWT.
Yet, not one Jehovah's Witness can provide me with the so-called "Jeopardy" episode that this urban legend came from.
This should not be an OPINION question, but rather a SCHOLARLY one, answered by Doctors of Theology.
by romans116 on June 9th, 2008
Great question.
When looking at translations of Scripture, there are basically three schools of thought. Literal, Dynamic, and Free.
The "Literal" translations of the Bible look to translate the text directly from the Greek or Hebrew and try to be as close as possible to the original text. The problem here is that much of the historical distance is kept (weights, measures, connotation, euphemisms, etc) and the english may be poor and hard to understand. (Examples: King James Version, New American Standard, etc.)
The "Dynamic" translations try to eliminate some historical distance and clean up the English by looking at the Greek and Hebrew text and translating words, idioms, and ideas. The problem here is that things may be demphasized for the sake of understanding the passage. (Examples: New International Versiion, New American Bible, New English Bible, Good News Bible, etc.)
The "Free" translations are the most subjective. It looks to eliminate all historical distance and speak soley the language of the reader. The problem here is that the Bible is wrapped up in a culture and much of that culture is used to teach lessons throughout scripture (i.e. the Jewish wedding/Coming of Christ) and with the Free translation much of that is translated into Western language that doesn't carry the same weight or pack the same puch as it did in the Greek or Hebrew.
Hebrew is a very picturesque language using word pictures to describe the things of God. Greek is a highly inflective language and the placement of a word depends on how it ends. Much of those aspects are lost in translations. You would be VERY well off if you could read Greek or Hebrew and dig into the Scriptures that way, but thanks be to God that He speaks to us in our own language and we can be confident that the message of Christ in the Bibles we have is just as powerful today as it was when it was first penned.
As far as tranlsational issues, I would encourage you to get a "Parallel Study Bible." It has 4 (maybe more) translations side by side that way if you are studying in the NIV for example, you can look over to the KJV and see what is emphasized or included that the NIV may have even left out. There is no perfect translation.
My advice to all would be to read and study the Word of God as much as you can. Read all translations. Compare them. Read Biblical commentaries. Soak it all in. The best thing we can do as Children of God is to be a sponge to everything that He has to say to us.
Hope this helps!
God bless!
by Mortaryan on March 27th, 2008
The Bible is a book, nothing more, even if inspired, it was still written by the hand of men (interesting how one will consider the bias of a translator, but not the hands who put quille to parchment or papyrus).
The Bible is a record of a several traditions, cut and pasted together, both "OT" and "NT."
You will not find the truth within a book, you will only find the truth within yourself (Deut.30:14), once you have found the truth engraved on your heart, then your eyes will be opened to the truth that exists everywhere (in the Bible or creation). Before this one translation is as good or muddled as the next.
If you are serious to REALLY know what the the writers wanted to say, then you would learn Greek and Hebrew and read the texts in their original languages.
by avatar on September 23rd, 2007
(response to answer #21)
Dear kim,
This is an assuming statement; "The reason some oppose the NWT and prefer the KJV is sometimes because the straightforward and clear modern language of the NWT does expose false doctrines and error more easily to the modern reader than the musty old language of 1611!"
The question originally posed at the beginning of this thread is a broad one, indeed. You are obviously partial to the NWT. It should be noted that in the above statement, you are comparing the NWT to only one of many available other trans-denominational interpretations; the KJV. However, it does not take a theological scholar, or a scholar of any type for that matter, to discern that all of these other versions; KJV, NASB, NIV, NET, etc, all concur regarding the most central themes of scripture. For example, you mention the trinity. Why is it that the NWT is the only version that attempts to refute this truth? And please, do not waste any more valuable time discussing bias. The NIV was interpreted by an international team of over 100 trans-denominational scholars to protect the translation from bias. The NET, as well, was interpreted by a team of over 25 scholars. The NET was created to be distributed free, not for profit. So there was no financial motivation to bend the text in any particular direction. In addition, it includes ALL of the 60,000+ notes that were used during translation so the reader can see how the text was converted. These are only two of many versions of the bible that agree with each other on all of the main points that the NWT solely attempts to refute. If 20 people tell me that 2+2=4 and they can show me the math to prove it, why would I trust the one individual telling me it equals 5, when they can’t show me how they reached that conclusion?
by Anonymous on September 9th, 2007
I feel the NWT is the most accurate as it is consistant in it's translation of words where as many substitute soul for the word spirit to try and prove the doctrine of the immortality of the soul which has no scriptural basis. Much research is done to verify their use of words and their true meaning.
by kimwally on August 1st, 2007
I think it is always best to go directly to the source if you want to be informed truthfully.The Bible tells us that there would be those who would not be faithful, they would in fact beat their fellow slaves -Matt :24:48-51 they would shrink back Heb 10:26-39 they would return like a dog to the vomit,return to the things behind -we should not be surprised if some after many years of following the path, go astray.It is important for us though, to conduct our own investigation -like those 'noble minded' ones -acts 17:11 -why waste time with self serving books like "crisis of conscience" when there are nearly 7 million christians getting on with the job ordered by the Christ -matt 24:14; 28:19,20
Focus on the Christ -not on those who have spirit of complaint -and He will lead you to victory!
by kimwally on July 25th, 2007
Dear "sinner",
I feel certain that you are sincere ,however we must use the bible as our guide -2 Timothy 3:16 Trinity,is a doctrine and it does not occur in the Bible because it is man-made, and that goes for "rapture " also.
You refer to John 1:1 (as do most trinitarians) as a proof text, if you read it in the original language (koine -greek) without prejudice, or use one of many careful translations that do not try to make it fit a doctrine, then you will see that it says that Jesus was not THE God but rather a god, godlike or divine -as are the angels.This agrees with Jesus own words at John 14:28 where He plainly states that the Father(Jehovah) is greater than He (Jesus)so they certainly could not be the same person.Hebrews ch.1 shows us that Jesus sat down -not on God's throne but to the right hand side of the "Majesty" and is better than the angels"to the extent that he has inherited a name better than theirs"- this was of course due to his obedience-phil.2:8 to whom was Jesus obedient? -Jehovah , his father of course! who is greater than Jesus and who "sent" Jesus to earth to die for "sinners".The reason some oppose the NWT and prefer the KJV is sometimes because the straightforward and clear modern language of the NWT does expose false doctrines and error more easily to the modern reader than the musty old language of 1611!imo.agape kimwally
by AnonYmous on July 10th, 2007
none. they have all staretd out as hand written copies they have been subjected to revisions by kings and popes, then translated from an unknown language to other languages finally to english. not to mention that the bible didnt appear untill 500 years after the death of christ so it all written down from a giant game of "telephone"
by kimwally on June 26th, 2007
"He that is taught against his will -is he that is of the same opinion still"
It's easy to form a biased view of a person or group and especially that is the case when that person or group are doing or saying what you should be doing or saying (but are not)or maybe they are trying to help you correct things about yourself that you are not willing to correct.This is what happened to Jesus when he was on earth.His opposers were always trying to find fault with Him and they tried every trick in the book to discredit the master.They even used bullying tactics to humiliate those who wantwed to know more about the Christ.Please note John 7;47-49, here they were in effect saying "no reputable Biblical scholar...." so, who decides whether one is reputable or not?The Pharisees or God? Proverbs 18:13 says we should each of us learn first then speak,and verse 15 encourages us to "acquire knowledge" remember what happened to those who followed blind quides? both fell into the pit!So, keep your jaundiced view of the NWT,I take exception to those who try to ,without knowing me, try to place me into a category as one who mindlessly follows "leaders"
did you not read Matthew 23:10 -we have no leader except the Christ.Millions of people are reading the NWT and they do it in many languages and it carries the power of God's word into their lives and produces righteous fruit.I am reminded of the words of Alexander Thomson, of Britain (outstanding Greek-Hebrew scholar,under appointment to the Queen for matters regarding the Bible) who said among other things (all positive about the NWT) "The New World Translation is not the work of Higher Critics, but of scholars who honour God and His Word" -the Differentiator june 1954 pp.131-136
by Esteban-- better than ever. on June 16th, 2007
The Reader's Digest version.
The sermon on the mount takes place at a STarbucks
by Don Gorgeous George 6 months ago
Sinai Bible.
by Moongrim 6 months ago
The one with the original text.
http://www.thelostbooks.com/
by Razzle-Fratchit 6 months ago
All the main contemporary English translations (NRSV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NJPS (OT only), NJB, NLV, NIRV, and NCV) are about as "accurate" as any translation of any work can be. They certainly don't put in anything that isn't in the original language text, or seriously botch the translation of any passage. All are aptly described as faithful translations.
If you really want to understand as much of the Bible as you can without becoming a master in Hebrew and Greek yourself, then, if you've got the time and the money, I'd say bypass any published Bibles and go straight to a complete Bible commentary series like the Expositor's Bible Commentary. These have all the Biblical passages in them, but with vast discussion of translation, interpretation, relationship to other passages, and so on. But you are essentially buying the Biblical equivalent of the entire Britannica - a few hundred pages of discussion and analysis of each book. (The EBC commentary on Genesis 1-3 alone is 25 pages. In the world of scholarly Bible commentaries, that's actually fairly short. D.A. Carson's INTRODUCTION to his brilliant commentary on John's Gospel is 184 pages.)
As to specific translations ...
The NRSV is the accepted "authorized version" for liturgical use in the mainlines AND for quotation in translation by scholars in published books. (In all their purely academic works and journal articles, though, no Biblical scholar would ever quote the Bible in anything but the original language; a translation would only be referenced to criticize it.)
The NASB is preferred by the more academic of the orthodox Protestants, but since it's (as far as possible) a verbatim translation, you need a knowledge of OT and NT idioms and expressions, or a companion work to explain them to you.
The NIV is fine for devotional reading, though a bit vapid in many places. Unlike the NASB, it's a periphrastic translation, meaning it translates the idioms and expressions for you. It also isn't just one single translation: it's continuously changing. The NIV translation committee meets regularly to revise and update the translation in an attempt to keep the language and imagery ever "contemporary". So a 2008 edition may have many (albeit extremely minor and utterly insignificant) variances from a 1978 edition. For example, they keep going back and forth on whether they should use the term slave, servant, or bond servant for doulos, because a doulos in the Hellenistic world of the 1st century wasn't a slave like black's were slaves in the American South, nor were they servants like a modern maid or butler: a doulos was owned by another man who could sell him at will, but the doulos could own his own property - even other slaves - run his own business, and even command an army or hold elected office (even though he couldn't vote himself), and it was fairly likely that he'd be freed after several years, so the members of the committee are always in a dither over what English word to use.
As with all translations though, a lot still gets lost in translation of the Hebrew, though far less with the Koine Greek (Koine is a much more straightforward language than Hebrew). For example, easily half the character names in Genesis and Judges all mean something relevant, but no translation translates them; e.g., Seth means something like "substitute" and Abel means "fleeting/ephemeral", while Lamech's two wives are named "Cuddly-soft" and "Ornament." Sarai (Abraham's wife, name later changed to Sarah) means "Boss-man" (so much for complaints of male-dominated world where women just did as they were told) while Sarah means something like "throne princess." Similarly Cushan-Rishathaim (of Judges infamy) means "doubly-wicked blackheart." (I think it's safe to say that's not what his mother named him.)
Also, one misses all the puns and other plays on words that exist in the Hebrew. You really need to read/study the OT not only with a faithful translation, but with a good commentary that points out and explains in detail all that translations necessarily leave out.
Finally, English translators are a little too squeamish about translating very guttural and crass terms into their English parallels. -- We can't have the pastor reading Philippians from the lectern and say what Paul really wrote: "I count it all as shit!" Likewise many of the all too dainty might take offense at God's actual words in Isaiah: "All your righteousness is as filthy stinking menstrual rags before me." And nobody translates what Elijah actually said to the prophets of Baal: "Where is your god? Is he out taking a crap?"
by Gone to The Secret Garden 10 months ago
The Zondervan Direct Translation.
by Anonymous 10 months ago
The most accurate translation of the OLD Testament is probably a rabbinical one. As for the New Testament, I haven't a clue ... I would trust a translation by a messianic rabbi with appropriate training in translating ancient scripture before most others simply because of these tranlators have an understanding of the cultural context that I, as a gentile - and a daughter of the Living God, removed by a couple of thousand years, cannot hope to understand without Divine inspiration. John warned that not one jot or tittle should be changed from the original text ... yet ... it seems just about everyone with an opinion on the translations has a favorite horror story about how each translation under discussion has something wrong with it. One wonders out of whose spirit these experts are speaking? In humility, it may be good to remember that it is written that where there is strife there is confusion and every evil work ... and that comes from the father of lies and his children ... not from God.
by snsliberty on January 6th, 2009
Why the Geneva Bible is the most accurate, because it was the first English translation, translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available at the time. Transcribed by Tyndale, Calvin, Knox, and other theologians as they were pursued by the Catholic Church at the time. The newer translations have been perverted over time by way of the manipulation of the English language, a present day problem.
The New World Translation is the official Jehovah Witness Watch-Tower Bible.
The best translation? Give me a break!
The following is what the J W’s believed compared to what the Bible teaches.
JW: The doctrine of the Trinity is "a false, unbiblical doctrine" originated by Satan. (Let God Be True, page I 01).
Bible: There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), but three distinctive Persons in the
Godhead, the Father (Philippians 2:11), Jesus Christ the Son (John 5:18), and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 9).
JW: Christ the Son was originally the first created being of Jehovah God. (Let God Be True, page 32).
Bible: Christ the Son is eternal, uncreated God (John 8:58, Revelation 1: 1 7-18 and Isaiah 44:6).
JW. Jesus Christ arose from the grave as a spirit being and was allowed to materialize a different body in which to appear to His disciples. (Your Will Be Done On Earth, page 143; Make Sure Of All Things, 1953 ed., page 314).
Bible: Jesus Christ arose in the same body that was laid in the tomb, which explains the marks of crucifixion. (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 25, 27; John 20:1-9).
JW: The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but rather the impersonal, active force of
God. (Let God Be True, 2nd ed., page 108; The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, page
24).
Bible: The Holy Spirit is an eternal Person, possessing all the essence of God. (John 14:16-17, 26; Acts 5:3-4).
Doctrine of Man
JW: A person's soul is an inseparable part of the body, so that when a person
dies there is no continued existence of the soul. (Make Sure Of All Things, 1953
ed., pages 349, 352).
Bible: Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31). Christ promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death. (2 Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).
JW: The doctrine of the immortality of the soul finds its origin with Satan. (Let God Be True, 2nd ed., pages 74,75).
Bible: The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth. (Ecclesiastes 12:7; 2Corinthians 5:1,6-8).
Doctrine of Salvation
JW: Christ's death only purchased for mankind the earthly life and earthly blessings lost when Adam sinned. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.5, page 145).
Bible: Christ's death purchased present forgiveness of sins and blessings beyond this earthly existence. (Ephesions 1:3-14).
JW: Christ's death only provides an opportunity for a person to attain eternal life through obeying God's laws. There is no assurance of eternal life. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.1, pages 150,152).
Bible: Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accepts, by faith, His sacrifice on their behalf. (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:8-9). God also preserves eternal life given by grace to believers. (I John 5:11-13; John 6:39, 10:28-29).
JW: Christ's blood shed on Calvary applies only to 144,000 of the "anointed class" or the elite JW’s and not for the "great crowd," the remainder of JW’s. (Aid To Bible Understanding, page 389).
Bible: Christ died on behalf of all men. (I Timothy 2:5-6; 1 John 2:2; 2Corinthians 5:15; Hebrews 2:9).
JW: One can only live in God's paradise through (1) studying the Bible accompanied by the Watchtower, (2) associating with Jehovah's Witnesses, (3) changing living habits from the former way to God's way (requiring JW baptism), and (4) being a preacher and a witness of God's Kingdom. (From Paradise Lost To Paradise Regained, pages 242-249).
Bible: Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior. (Acts 4:10-¬12, 10:42-43; Romans 3:21-24).
JW: The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally
after death is false. (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., pages 154-155).
Bible: Hell is a place of everlasting torment for the unrepentant wicked.
(Revelation 20:11-15; Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50; Mark 9:47-48).
Verses Deleted In Modern Bible Versions
Most people believe the new versions are just "harmless" updating of words and made easier to understand.
Nothing could be further from the Truth!
Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:11-12, tells the parable of the sower and the seed:
"Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God . . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” Luke 8:11-12
The new versions "take away" complete verses from the words of God. And as with Eve (see Genesis 3:1), it s all done very subtly.
The average reader would never know it happened!
Stay away from the modern translations, particularly the NIV translation. The NIV, NASV, RSVN, RSV, NCV and LIV. translations have deleted verses
The most accurate English translation is the newly printed forgotten Geneva Bible Translation.
by Anonymous on January 3rd, 2009
Very true. All bibles do contain the message of God. If only one would read it in its entirety chances are he would be closer to the truth. Oh , excuse me not just read it but ponder it, meditate on it. Does not the Word of God deserve that? We need to obtain an appetite for the truth of HIs Word.
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on January 3rd, 2009
You might as well ask a mother which is her favorite child....
by Anonymous on January 3rd, 2009
Is it possible for a God to create the stars, planets, all matter in the universe, immutable and universal laws to govern the movement of these, to create living beings and to make all of this self sustaining and enduring for billions of years, but He can not make a book that says what He wants it to say?
For those of you that say a translation is inaccurate, it is not. There may be a letter, word, a phrase or even a whole sentence even hundreds, which have been erroneously or even deliberately changed by translators, but are they more powerful than God?
Can the will of man supersede that of the one who created him?
The Bible is so long, it has so many cross references and explains things in so many different ways that it is impossible for a man, or even a group of dedicated men, to successfully alter or change the meaning of it.
Every Bible contains the truth on every matter, even if it is covered over in one phrase or two.
For example, the New King James version, in the book of Ezekiel;
formerly the King James version consistently translated the word nephesh to mean soul.
In Ezekiel it says "the soul that sinneth, it shall die"
Due to the use of this in arguing against the immortality of the soul they thought it best to change the Bible to suit their own beleifs, and in the New King James Version write instead; "the living being that sinneth, it shall die"
Most people, not knowing the original says nephesh, which is translated in other instances as soul, will never know that it has changed and some might surmise that the translators have successfully duped the audience, and overcome Gods will to make an accurate Bible.
There are, however, cross references, picture stories, detailed explanations and symbolic representations which can be used to explain this matter further.
Here is a cross reference on the subject, in Ecclesiastes 9:5; For the living know that they shall die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have any more a reward; for their memory is forgotten.
Here and in the contextual verses it says the dead know nothing, or basically they can not think, feel or do anything, because they are dead.
So despite the efforts of the "mis"translators the Bible still says what it was intended to say, if and only if you read and apply ALL of the Bible.
There are, of course, other means of references, like the book of Genesis where God says "in the day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil, you shall positively die", and Satan says "you positively will not die", we could ask the audience, who is it that you believe, Satan, or God?
We will find the same in all matters of doctrine, the Trinity, immortality, divinity of Christ, and every other subject.
As for Roger Kovaciny and other who speak from arguments of authority, arguing over a single letter or word, saying this group or that one deliberately mistranslated, worst translation ever etc... the Word of God is accurate and not a single letter of it will pass away until all of the things written in it have come to pass.
Do you not trust in Jehovah? Do you think His strength is so small that He can not say what He wants us to hear? Or is Bible translation merely a game? A trivial mind game like a word puzzle?
by snsliberty on January 2nd, 2009
The 1599 NEW REPRINT OF THE GENEVA BIBLE ALONG WITH STRONGS CONCORDANCE is an excellent start. A good addition would be, Tyndale’s New Testament.
All can be found on Amazon.
No one will be able to pull the wool over your eyes with these editions, can’t go wrong.
The Pilgrims carry this edition to the New World.
by Tinkerbell on December 29th, 2008
No one really knows as we don't have the original texts. I think if memory serves the earliest fragment of the New Testament comes from about the early 2nd Century CE. Bart Ehrman has written some very good books, both technical and popular on this subject which I would really recommend. Amongst many others of course, but Ehrman is very readable. I am readin Lost Scriptures at the moment about the non-canonical gospels and i is very very interesting.
There are of course discrepancies between various elements we do have, most of which, indeed the VAST majority, are completely trivial but it still makes for interesting reading to find out how some passages have been altered and in some cases added over time by various scribes. Some do have some significance and it is intriguing to try and piece it all together.
Not my specialist subject but very interesting.
by Greekgod on December 28th, 2008
None since none of them include some gospels that are not even in the bible.
by snsliberty on December 22nd, 2008
Stay with the Geneva Bible, it is the most accurate translation into the English language. Originally from the original work of the finest theologians in history, as well as from the Greek and Latin manuscripts at the time. From great men like; William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox. The Pilgrims carried this Bible.
New World translation? Give me a break! This is a perverted version of scripture produced by the Jehovah Witnesses.
by vghopkinsjr on August 13th, 2008
It's funny how all these JW's fail to mention that Jehovah, translated into plain English means "God of Israel". They forget that neighboring nations weren't instant Christians and prayed and worshiped other "gods". So as any nation would do, they lay faith and claim to the God of their land as others didn't believe. Despite the small bits of arrogance or pride that might resonate, that's why the name "Jehovah" appears 7,000+ times...
Obviously God's Word and his Son's sacrifice grew and spread globally. He is the ruler of all things, not just Israel.
Saying because Muslims refer to him a Allah and it is written, that Allah is his name, when it too, also translate to "God".
No one knows God's name, we address our Heavenly Father by his titles and those alone. God, Allah, Father, The Alpha and the Omega, etc.
The JW's are a satanist cult. Anything trying to lead you away from Jesus is evil.
by rojoloco on August 9th, 2008
I own an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. It is by far the most accurate translation. It shows the Greek but under it, it has the English words. They make no sense at all because it is word for word with no regard for English grammatical structure. It also contains the Strong's numbers over the words as well as the KJV in the right margin and a literal translation in the left margin.
My preferred Bible is the NASB. It is very accurate in the word for word sense but is still readable.
by bjr9er on May 28th, 2008
I don't have an opinion on the most accurate, but I KNOW the NWT is not it. The NWT translation was obviously written to back Watchtower Tract Society doctrine. Research the translators of the NWT and you'll find that they had very little to no Hebrew or Greek training. Nathan Knorr was the only one with any education, and he had 2yrs Community College. If the NWT is accurate, why are the JW'S the only one's using it?????? Exactly!!!
by Truth75 on May 21st, 2008
I'm sure everyone thought how they served God was okay in Noah's day....unfortunately only Noah, his wife, and their 3 sons and son's wives were saved.
Think about this....if MOST christians had the truth and were practicing according to God's word, then the majority of problems that we experience in this world would simply not exist...
One of the Largest religious Organizations on Earth (Catholism) has historically been behind most of the Religious conflicts over the past 1000 years as well as the 20th century. It was the Roman Catholic Church that put Hitler into power. "Thou Shalt not Kill" one of God's most basic of basic commands. Read your history fokes..and Read your Bible.
by Love on May 21st, 2008
People need to be careful about listening to urban legends. I bet "Anonymous" is a Jehovah's Witness himself and loves to spread around this myth without looking at the accuracy of his statements.
Also, you might find it interesting to look up this person David BeDunn. In all cases (that I've taken the time to research) of the Jehovah's Witnesses quoting scholars that supposably state their bibles accuracy, they have ALL been misquoted!! Even one of the scholars the JW's quote is a self proclaimed devil worshiper. Yet they are more than happy to quote him as testimony of their bibles accuracy.
Again, I'm the second person to ask this:
Provide a video of Alex Trabek on Jeopardy stating that the NWT is the most accurate.
Then we'll talk.
PS- The Jewish people usually do not mention the true name of God because of a superstition surrounding it. So the fact that the JW's put in the name Jehovah being spoken left and right by the Jewish people is a testament to the inaccuracy of their version. To this day the Jewish people are superstitious about YHWH! Not to mention the JW's even put the Hebrew name in the New Testament part of the bible- and they spoke Greek not Hebrew! The NWT is a joke written by uneducated biased cult members.
by JohnDough on April 1st, 2008
Not the NWT. By the way, the reference to Alex Trebek extoling the accuracy of the NWT on Jeopardy is an internet hoax.
by JimmyO on March 31st, 2008
This reply is for answer 28 out of 53. I am JimmyO. In my younger years, I was a Lutheran Pastor. I have been around the spiritual block. Preached my brains out. All with right motives. My only concern is the truth. The very first question in Luther's Catechism is What is God's will concerning Man? Luther answered the question with a quote from 1 Timothy 2:3,4: "This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth." And I will change my beliefs a hundred times a day, if the Bible tells me so. Glenn, you've put the cart, your beliefs, before the horse. Don't believe something without the Bible, the horse, dictating it. I have no agenda. I yield 100 per cent to the written Word of God. I am nobody in His presence. Wake up people. It's crunch time. I know a lot about other translations, studied them at the seminary where I received my training to be an ordained minister. I use all translations of the Bible for my research. I just found the New World translation to be the closet to the Greek intent. There is very little differnce between translations, so all doctrine is easily proven by any transalation. Or disproven. The name of the game is let God's Written Word take precedence over personal erroneous conclusions to support large influential religions with pre-determined doctrines. Don't be deceived by a large building that has been around for centuries. Remember, Satan appears as an "angel of light." And he wants us to go down with him. He has a one-way ticket to non-existence. And he wants us to join him. John 8:44 says he is the "Father of the lie." He told Eve the first lie: "Eat the fruit. You won't die." She died. Satan lied through his Devilish teeth. Read Delorean's book "God is Red." He is an American Indian. And he says Religion has gone way beyond simplicity. Big buildings. Big money. Glittering generalities. Be careful. Jesus said his followers would be "hated for no reason." Are people in your church hated for no reason, as Jesus was? If not, make a list, check it twice. Someone has been naughty and not nice. Stop paying preachers. Stop passing collection plates for money. Yes, there are bills to pay, heat, lights, etc. Read a monthly accounts report, put a contibution box in the back of the building. People will donate as needed. If the church is of God, He will motivate and provide the neccessities. His holy spirit is marvelous! Add to that, powerful! It's time to test the waters.
by royal77 says hello friend on March 31st, 2008
I would not know how to define most accurate, but I like both the old Kings James version and the old Reina Valera Version. I am not too much into the new versions.
How do you explain an all knowing, all powerful God 1) WALKING through the garden in the cool of the day and 2)Not being able to find Adam because he was hiding behing a few trees (Gen 3:8)?
by Truth Seeker 29 days ago
| 5 people like this
Which of the following Bible translation is the most accurate relative to the oldest, and best manuscripts? Why?
by Mister IT has a Liahona equipped COAT 24 days ago
| 1 person likes this
The Christian Bible should be seen as...
by MrJosh 11 days ago
| 1 person likes this
The divine name (tetragrammaton, JHVH, YHWH) was in the OT almost 7000 times. Which one does it represent, Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Trinity?
by Texasescimo 19 days ago
| 1 person likes this
Where did Jesus go when he died? The King James Version says he was in Hell. Is that correct?
by Texasescimo 22 days ago
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Which Bible is the most accurate translation of the original text? - which can also be phrased as:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Thank you for submitting an educated and unbiased opinion, which is also probably correct.
by Anonymous on October 10th, 2005
Nicely done! No dogmatic bias...only educated experience.
by generalhavok on January 5th, 2006
Great answer, Roger.
by singwell-is off researching a lot on June 21st, 2007
I don't know how your determining what a "accurate translation" is but both the NAS and KJ Bibles contain thousands of known errors. The king James version was good for the 16th century but a little behind the times now.
by madmat on July 8th, 2007
On the contrary, I'd say the KJV is the only trustworthy english translation of the Bible. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm
by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on July 10th, 2007
No one has ever located the original texts, so I don't know how anyone can deem anything an accurate translation. The King James Version is known to have many errors. http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm Giving a link to a site created, written, and maintained by believers isn't going to help, dear.
by AntigoneRising on July 31st, 2007
AntigoneRising, if, according to you, no one has ever located the "original" texts, then how can you know the KJV has many errors?
by ke5bbc on November 1st, 2008
An Answerbag bug didn't let me post a comment so please look at "read all answers" to continue this thread. But I'd also like to say that you have to do a LOT of homework before you can call a printed translation an error. I thought I'd caught 19 just in the Ukrainian translation of First Timothy, but then checked three commentaries, two English translations, five Ukrainian translations, a second Greek dictionary and the Latin Vulgate and my objections are now down to five--some of which may be proved wrong in committee.
by Roger Kovaciny on November 1st, 2008
Great answer Roger
by April 6 months ago
Several good point in this thread. I like the suggestion of a parallel made by RK. According to scholars and older manuscripts like the Vatican MS 1209, Sinaiticus, and the ALexandrian Codex, AntigoneRising's comment is not without basis either. http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7025764
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7133378
Most sincere people can do research as suggested by RK and come to their own conclusions.
by Texasescimo 2 months ago