[Moved to exploring Christianity] Greetings to all - I have a question

[Ba'alServer]

I am interested in finding out what would be considered to be the most accurate translation of the bible. I've searched the polls section, and all I found was a poll asking for people's favorite translation, which turned out to be the kjv.

Is there any translation that can be recommended as the most accurate translation? Are there any translations that I should completely avoid?

 

[SplendidTree]

Welcome to CF! I personally read the KJV. I am not sure the exact answer to your question but will pray you find the answers!

 

[SplendidTree]

There are many forum areas to explore here on CF. The Advice one may be a good place to start. Christian Advice - Christian Forums

 

[billypayton]

Christian Advice - Christian Forums

Hello †Friend, and Welcome to CF, may your stay here be Blessed !

 

[Ba'alServer]

Thank you for the advice, cmjames84. I'll look around in there.

 

[Helenm12]

I tend to use the New King James Version, but the Amplified Version is also good (gives you every possible meaning for each word). Of course, if you're really trying to understand a particular passage, nothing beats grappling with the original language. I am learning Hebrew at the moment, and realise just how much meaning and depth is lost in translation.

 

[Mr Dave]

Welcome to the site Ba'alserver

As a Non Christian, you may not post in the link that was posted earlier, but you can go here if you want

Exploring Christianity - Christian Forums

 

[Mr Dave]

Mod-Hat On

Two identical threads have been merged into one and moved to Exploring Christianity.
Any duplicate posts in the merge have been removed.
Non-Christians may not post in Forums reserved for Christians Only.
As this is now in Exploring Christianity, only Christians and the OP may respond.

Mod-Hat Off​

 

[SplendidTree]

My apologies. I did not notice you were a non-Christian. I hope you find what you are looking for!

 

[BFine]

The 1995 NASB is considered most accurate by many...
I regularly use the NASB, NIV, KJV, The Complete Hebrew Bible, and I also have other
bibles including a copy of The 1599 Geneva Bible...that version came over
with the pilgrims.

I would suggest that if you are interested in reading the bible, then get a translation
you can read and understand the language it uses.
A study bible it is quite informative and many newbies or seekers find it useful.

 

[razeontherock]

Bloody warfare is hopefully behind us, but this topic has brought many awfully close to that on CF

If I were buying a Bible, I would be looking at:

Beck
God's Word
Orthodox Study Bible

I think very highly of The Message, with the disclaimer that it's not good for the Gospels. Those that hate this version never mention it's strengths, like Paul's writings, Isaiah and other Prophets, and Proverbs. I think it's a good place for a noob to start, and after reading my KJV till it fell apart and spending many years with the Amplified, it served me well.

Biblegateway.com has The Message free online, but I usually go to blueletterbible.com

The short answer is any version you will read is the best, and every one has it's strengths as well as it's weaknesses. There are many versions available, for good reason. Both NASB and ESV take a word-for-word approach to translation, while MSG and NLT take a concept for concept approach. Comparing one of each category is a great way to pursue difficult passages!

 

[drich0150]

I am interested in finding out what would be considered to be the most accurate translation of the bible. I've searched the polls section, and all I found was a poll asking for people's favorite translation, which turned out to be the kjv.

Is there any translation that can be recommended as the most accurate translation? Are there any translations that I should completely avoid?

Why would you only limit yourself to one translation? That would be like taking a jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on a table and ask, which piece best represents the picture on the box the best?

While not ever translation is valid, Most contribute to a larger picture. Why? Because when we translate even a modern language into another certain words may only translate to an idea, or phrase rather than another word. their are also syntax issues to be considered. the phrasing of the translated words.. For instance if you take this sentence "What color are you going to paint your car." and translate it to Korean, In Korean the noun and verbiage orientation is completely different It would look something like "You car paint coloring?" In each translation lies a different interpretation of basically the same texts.. They are written to different brothers with different levels of education and understanding. To same one is best is over looking what the others offer.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Asking what the most accurate translation is can be a rather complex issue. Since it's not simply a matter of a translation best reflecting its source texts, but also an issue of how good the source texts are--which is a matter of debate among scholars. The two main New Testament text types are the Byzantine and Alexandrian. The Byzantine texts are more common but date somewhat later, while the Alexandrian texts are older but less common.

What biblical translators typically rely on are critical editions of the Greek text, an amalgam of Greek manuscripts into a single critical text. An example of a critical Greek text based upon the Byzantine textual tradition would be the critical Greek text by Erasmus of Rotterdam, produced in the 16th century and was the primary source text for William Tyndale's English translation as well as Martin Luther's German translation; and by consequence the King James Version of 1611 used Erasmus' critical Greek text while borrowing large portions of Tyndale's own English prose. An example of a critical Greek text based upon the Alexandrian textual tradition would be the Westcott-Hort Greek text produced in the late 19th century, which is a primary source text for the New International Version (NIV).

There is a continuing debate between scholars as to whether the Byzantine or Alexandrian texts best reflect the original texts, and there are other text types such as the Western and Caesarean which are rarer than both the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types.

There are distinct differences between the various text types and variations even within the same manuscript "family", so when scholars want to produce a critical edition of the Greek text it requires a lot of study and work to produce something which can then be used as a source text for translation.

Currently I am a fan of the ESV (English Standard Version) and the NAB (New American Bible). I've never been good at sticking to a single translation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[eachallberg]

...
Is there any translation that can be recommended as the most accurate translation? Are there any translations that I should completely avoid?

To be most accurate you need to avoid translations.

Peace.

 

[zaksmummy]

If you dont mind reading on the computer try the Interlinear Scripture Analyser, the only problem with it would be that it isnt particularly readable, but it is very accurate. It also gives you the Hebrew/Greek words, so you can see the scriptures as they were written in their original language.

 

[Faulty]

I am interested in finding out what would be considered to be the most accurate translation of the bible. I've searched the polls section, and all I found was a poll asking for people's favorite translation, which turned out to be the kjv.

Is there any translation that can be recommended as the most accurate translation? Are there any translations that I should completely avoid?

Hre's a chart that might help you determine which are more word-for-word, as opposed to thought-for-thought.

NJAB - Comparison Chart of Bible Translations showing style or type of translation and readability or grade level

I personally use the ESV primarily, but I do have others for clarification purposes. I'd recommend avoiding the thought-for-thought versions, as they tend to more of what the writers think God said, than what God did say.

 

[Ba'alServer]

Helenm12 - I've seen the amplified bible, and the bracketed words just seemed like paraphrasing.

Are these the actual hebrew meanings within the brackets?

 

[Ba'alServer]

BFine - could you tell me why the 1995 NASB is considered to be more accurate?

 

[razeontherock]

Helenm12 - I've seen the amplified bible, and the bracketed words just seemed like paraphrasing.

Are these the actual hebrew meanings within the brackets?

Yes. Hebrew for OT, Greek for new. The problem with the Amplified is basically every possible meaning for a given word in the original language is given equal weight, and that is not the way the original languages work. (This is also the limitation of Strong's concordance) Sentence structure narrows down the range of possible meanings further than either account for, and esp Greek is precise with it's intended meaning. Hebrew is much more "open," or artistic.

Applying yourself to such things gives one appreciation for the thought-for-thought translations, sometimes called paraphrases, which some look down on. As Drich touched on briefly, any time you actually understand something from one language to another, you have gone through a process of paraphrasing anyway. The word-for-word translation process is incredibly limiting, even though many do prefer that, thinking it to be more accurate.

 

[Ba'alServer]

razeontherock - thank you for your explanations.

If I had to pick one, would you agree that a concept for concept translation would be better than a word for word translation, or are the concepts themselves more prone to adjustment by the translator's ethnocentrism?

I usually use biblegateway, finding blueletterbible more difficult to navigate from book to book. Plus, biblegateway's layout makes it easier on the eyes.

What draws you to blueletterbible?