All new Answerbag! Check out the changes
All new Answerbag! Check out the changes
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 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 Gone to The Secret Garden 10 months ago
The Zondervan Direct 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 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 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 Moongrim 6 months ago
The one with the original text.
http://www.thelostbooks.com/
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 Don Gorgeous George 5 months ago
Sinai Bible.
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 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 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 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 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 kimwally on July 31st, 2007
In 1947 (before the NWT was produced) there was a test made on various translations by Professor E.E.Colwell
of 64 problem texts in the book of John.
The results were published in a book "What is the best New Testament?" on page 87.
Goodspeed was the most accurate with a perfect score of 64.Following was the westminister (Catholic) 58, American Standard 58, Revised Standard 56, Moffatt's 56, Confraternity 35, Knox 33, douay 25 and King James 0.
So, those who really feel that the KJV is the most accurate translation lack support from the facts.Also,regarding adding words to a translation to support a doctrine -please research 1 john 5:7 the "comma Johanneum" trying to support the trinity doctrine! just one example.warm regards kimwally
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 Aero the lifeguard 2 months ago
Hard to say, although the King James was the first to ever be translated into english so that is the most accurate english, and the Protestant one translated into German by Martin Luther, which is older, could be even more accurate but other than the original, no bible will be an exact translation because of language barriers, but original translations into the language you read is probably your best bet.
by snsliberty 2 months ago
The best translations of the Bible would be the KJV, Geneva, or the Companion Bible: King James Version, by E. W. Bullinger
These are all basically the original English translations. However, most importantly, it is the only translation that will coordinate with Strong’s Concordance. The Strong’s Concordance properly translates the original Greek and Hebrew text into the KJV.
Most all of the newer translations are garbage, with the NIV being the worst.
None of the newer translations coordinate with Strong’s concordance.
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete 2 months ago
Since I do not know how to read Hebrew and/or Greek... I truly do not know which "Christian" version of the bible is most correct.
There are definitely certain none Christian imitations and knock offs.
I prefer to read the NIV. It flows nicely. I also have a "Dikes" annotated bible. Only done in KJV.
Often I like to go to one of these...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version=NIV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=3
In general, using a couple different translations usually help to understand exactly what God is saying.
by stevecee 2 months ago
We all have reasons, some good, some bad, for believing that any particular translation is the best. Sometimes our opinions are based upon facts, sometimes on nothing more than a belief. The sincerity of our conviction has no real bearing on whether our belief is true or not.
And, since, there will never be a consensus here as to what is the most accurate translation, perhaps we should, even more importantly, ask ourselves, "Do I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Do I believe that despite human error, or deliberate efforts to distort, God can preserve his word with enough accuracy to allow us to learn the truth?"
We might also ask, "If I hear the ring of truth, will I accept it, or allow fear of man or prejudice to prevent me from making adjustments in my beliefs?"
One thing that any Bible reader should be asking himself, is the question Jesus raised in response to his Apostles asking for a sign of the last days. After stating that there would be wars, pestilence, etc. he raised a question. "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"
Regardless of our beliefs, if we accept Christ, we cannot ignore his point blank question because he said that slave would be entrusted with the spiritual welfare of all Christians. And that's pretty clear in virtually every translation.
by CJones 2 months ago
King James Version is the one I prefer. And as a sidenote, the New World Translation is a blasphemous work by the Watchtower Society, a publishing company that edited the Holy Bible to conform to their doctrine - what an abomination~~~
by AMcho 5 months ago
Let's face it guys, this is a very good question, but it is something that lends to a very opinionated answer.
As for the NWT, some of it is the most accurate ever, however, some of it is not. There are inconsistencies in their own texts on the rules that they give for the reasoning of some of the translations. For instance, if one looks at the New Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (the Watchtower's interlinear Bible with the NWT "translation" directly verse for verse in the margin) one can plainly see that there are many contradictions.
One example among many is John 8:58. In the NWT it is translated as "Jesus said to them; 'Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.'" Their own interlinear's literal translation is "Before Abraham to become I AM." Their explanation is that the sentence is in the perfect indefinite text (1950). When they realized that was not good Greek grammar, they changed their story reasoning to the "perfect tense indicative" (1961). This did not hold up with Greek grammar either; so the reason was changed yet again to the perfect indicative, i.e., "The action expressed by this verb began in the past, is still in progress, and is properly translated." Ask any person who has studied ancient Greek and see if this holds water. Jesus was saying here that he is God.
This claim is backed up in John 10:36. To say that one is the "son of" means in the language of the time "the order of" as in verses...
Exo 1:9 And he proceeded to say to his people: “Look! The people of the sons of Israel are more numerous and mightier than we are.
Num 2:7 And the tribe of Zebulun; the ruler of the sons of Zebulun shall be Eliab the son of Helon.
IKi 20:35 And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his friend by the word of Jehovah: “Strike me, please.” But the man refused to strike him.
Neh 12:28 And the sons of the singers proceeded to gather themselves even from the District, from all around Jerusalem and from the settlements of the Ne·toph´a·thites,
Jer 32:19 great in counsel and abundant in acts, you whose eyes are opened upon all the ways of the sons of men, in order to give to each one according to his ways and according to the fruitage of his dealings;
Back to point...
Also, in John 1:1 NWT, "In the beginning the Word was and the Word was with God and the Word was a god." Again, their own interlinear contradicts them saying, "and god was the Word." Their reasoning was that the "definite article 'ho', 'the', appears before the first 'God' therefore meaning it should be translated "God" with a upper case "G" -- being Jehovah. However the second does not have "ho" so the indefinite article was put there for "clarity". They consider this a rule of translation. Let's "clarify" some other verses according the this Watchtower's rule...
John 1:6 There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of (a) god: his name was John
John 1:13 and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from (a) god.
Of course these were translated in the proper manner as "God" without the indefinite article "a" in the NWT. Since it was translated properly later, this proves that the Watchtower knows how it should be translated. I find it confusing that the Watchtower does not follow its own rule in subsequent verses. It seems that things are being changed for a specific agenda. The aforementioned are only 2 examples of many.
I'm not knocking JW's. All that I have met are very good people and are very devoted people. Unfortunately, in my experience, THE ONES I'VE MET seem more devoted to the doctrine of the Watchtower than the Word.
As for good translations of the Bible, the oldest scripts in translation that I know of are the Wescott/Hort and there is an interlinear with English translations at http://www.scripture4all.org/ . They have an Adobe online version and one that you can download from their site to your computer. You can't get much more accurate than literal, but know that just reading the Bible sometimes is just the surface of study. (At least I believe) for all the richness of meaning, one must study the history of Hebrew and Greek grammar as well as the history of the times, along with their laws and customs.
I also, love the Net Bible at http://net.bible.org/home.php . It has notations on almost every verse explaining history, influences, and even the slightest change in wording along with the literal meaning whenever there is a change in wording.
Amplified is very good with nuances of the original text along with connotations of the original language. It seems to make the Scriptures come to life.
Also, I like Gods Word Translation, although I have just recently purchased it and cannot verify it's literal accuracy at this point. So far it seems to be quite good. You can buy it on e-sword (as well as the Amplified and Net.)
I don't claim to be a scholar, and I know very little about Greek and Hebrew, but I've done (and continue to do) months of research and homework regarding this very subject. I pray that you find what is best, as I continue my search, also.
by Henry - ACS 3 months ago
There's an online bible which dates back to the 4th century - most of it is there, the original text from it etc. That's probably about as accurate as you'll get.
It has no mention of the ressurection, or some other of Jesus' miracles as well.
by ApstleofJC 2 months ago
First, I was responding to something else on this site and am not sure why it was not associated with that particular comment. I do think before I type and the KJV is the most accurate. I have studied many other translations and various other religious texts supposedly gospels or olden text held by the early church. The NWT is a false translation in that it says that there are more than one God. It also is not consistent with it's rendering of the name Jehovah because "they" don't believe Jesus is God in the flesh. The best way to determine the accuracy of the Bible is to compare the OT with the Jewish bible. The KJV's OT is the closest and the NT of the KJV matches in ideology. I have studied the Tanach, the Torah, and the "other" Jewish texts and found the KJV is most consistant with Jewish renderings. Many things are taken out of context with other versions and many herecies have resulted. The OT says God will come and save us Himself. KJV says Jesus is God.
by BUSTER One month ago
Regarding the name of GOD, whether it be YHWH,YAHWEH or JEHOVAH, there is no deneighing that GOD'S name appeared over 7000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. The name of GOD must have had some significance otherwise why would Jesus, in the Lord's prayer, ask that his Fathers name be sanctified, be made holy? In another prayer while Jesus was praying to his heavenly God and Father, after conversing with his desciple about their being one with him just as he was one with the Father, (does that make all his desciples equal with God also?) after making that comparison, he said at John 17:6 & 26 "and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known...". To Jesus, his Fathers name was holy, he made it known to his desciples and would continue to make it known. I would be very fearful to remove that holy name from my bible as most translations have. Clearly, according to Jesus, the name should continue to be made known. It is a shame that most out there, due to their preference in bible translation, will not know the name of God and will continue to think it is LORD, which is not a name but a title. The New World Translation has been very wise to have translated the divine name from the oldest manuscripts available, DEAD SEA SCROLLS, as an example, where the tetragramaton, (YHWH), is clearly evident as it is in many of the oldest copies on record. Regarding the TV program Jeopardy, and the question “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.” I did not see the program but I have two friends who did. They confirm the above. I have a NWT and I do trust what Jason BeDuhn said about it. It is the most honest, accurate and least bias bible translation available.
by Suspira 15 days ago
According to my beliefs, the King James version is the most accurate.
by kimwally 15 days ago
dear suspira-it is very likely that you are sincere when you say it is your belief that the kjv is the most accurate-however for those of us that believe that our relationship with the author must be based on truth not credulity -then we need more than just an assurance from you.
I have been a bible reader for over 30 years and I -like many others have taken the time to "prove all things" . I find it sad that there are so many deceivers in this world who are "misleading and being misled" -thanks be to God who has made sure that true Christians have the tools available to "prove all things".Jesus said his true followers would be hated and misrepresented -this has come to pass-so we are not surprised.
Suspira, can I suggest that you embark on a quest for truth and don't accept any "wooden nickles".John4:24
by Jim 15 days ago
I dont know.
by Mikey_li 19 days ago
Several comments have posed the New World Translation as the answer to this question. Since multiple reply threads are going, I am answering directly to the question rather than replying to one of the threads.
The New World Translation is accurate TO THE POINT that it agrees with JW religious belief. However, when the Bible conflicts with JW doctrine the text has been altered to fit their beliefe rather than adhere to the original text. Here are some concrete examples of these alterations:
http://www.towertotruth.net/GoingGreek.htm
The question is what the most accurate translation of the Bible is. Because the NWT has substantial varieance from the original Hebrew and Greek, this version cannot be put forward as a correct answer.
A lot of people do not belive the Bible is true, and JW's don't belive that all of the Bible is true. That is fine, since we all can believe whatever we want. But to claim that the NWT has not been altered when any scholer can easily and clearly point out exactly where it has indeed been altered. Well, lie to yorself but please don't bother lying to us. The facts are too readily obtainable.
by snsliberty One month ago
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 best translations of the Bible would be the KJV, Geneva, or the Companion Bible: King James Version, by E. W. Bullinger
These are all basically the original English translations. However, most importantly, it is the only translation that will coordinate with Strong’s Concordance. The Strong’s Concordance properly translates the original Greek and Hebrew text into the KJV.
Most all of the newer translations are garbage, with the NIV being the worst.
None of the newer translations coordinate with Strong’s concordance, therefore the original meanings have been changed!
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete One month ago
The New World Translation is definitely not the most accurate.
http://contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php
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 Esteban-- better than ever. on June 16th, 2007
The Reader's Digest version.
The sermon on the mount takes place at a STarbucks
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 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 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 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 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 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 oscar lover on October 3rd, 2008
hey i us the new world translation. hey iam a jehovah's witnesse to.
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 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 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 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 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 Bibleography on February 4th, 2008
The New World Translation is.
Revelations states in the last days the majority of the people will be fooled. If you think we are in the last days: What do you think the majority of people believe that is not correct?
by Truth Seeker 13 days ago
| 1 person likes this
What is more accurate when compared to older manuscripts, the NWT or the KJV?
by Texasescimo 8 days ago
| 1 person likes this
Should the bible be studied in the same way that a science book is studied in order to learn?
by kakskee 13 days ago
| 1 person likes this
Have you ever questioned the mayube Satan wrote the Bible and not God?(This question is for christians)
by warex255 15 days ago
| 1 person likes this
The Bible states man was put in(not created in) the Garden to work it and take care of it. However the ground was not cursed(we have to toil to eat) until later. What type of work were we supposed to be doing?
by Truth Seeker 15 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
So all of these scholars that agree with the NWT are wrong because you believe they are. What kind of snakes do you handle? Have you drank any poison lately? If you do not know what I am talking about, read Mark 16:17-18 in the KJV. Modern translations will tell you that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious. People who swear by the KJV need to handle snakes to prove they believe.
by Texasescimo 8 days ago