Bible Translations

[DeerGlow]

I've used NIV almost my whole life, I don't know why but I've always favoured that one and it never seems to make other people's most accurate translation lists. What are everyone's top three?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sdowney717]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

The Textus Receptus is the most accurate and complete scripture we have and is what the KJV and some others use.
The NIV uses another set of scriptures called the Critical Text and is missing some important words and changes in the phrases.
I do beleive bibles translated from the Textus Receptus are the best.

What you basically had were scribes rewriting - copying the texts from earlier scriptural texts from the greek which were written down much earlier and were decaying and they did make some odd changes among themselves, likely left out some phrasing they did not like for the Critical Text copies they made.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I grew up as a Southern Baptist with the KJV. My father was a KJV loyalist, and he eventually bought the 1611 edition. The church we attended for years went with the NIV, though my father offered to fill the pews with KJV's at his own expense.

For myself, I still have a lot of respect for the KJV - with some reservations I won't mention here. Otherwise, I am divided, as I like the Ferrar Fenton Version for OT, but not his NT. For the NT, I really like Andy Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament, and some of that may be in its non-Bible format - single column, few notes, and reading like a long prose discourse in modern English, much more casual than the FFV.

I also have a Young's Literal Version, and have not read much in it yet, but it looks like a good translation.

 

[TaylorSexton]

My top 3 are the NIV, ESV, and KJV, but this is all personal preference. Neither is really better than the other.

As a side note, I would advise strongly against giving heed to anyone who tries to argue for a certain textual tradition, arguing that it is "better" than another. Most of the time the people arguing for better translations or textual traditions have absolutely no background in or understanding of either the original languages or textual criticism. Until one can actually read Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic and can do basic work in textual criticism, he or she has no right to make bald assertions regarding this field of study. I am almost certain that I can hand some of these opinionated people a NA28 textual apparatus or a BHS Masorah Magna/Parva, yet 95% of the time they wouldn't even be able to read it, much less know how to use it effectively. But, nowadays, "everyone is a textual critic."

 

[JackRT]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.

 

[sdowney717]

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Some enjoyable reading about the odd striking differences between the KJV based on the Textus Recepticus versus the other modern versions based on the critical text. He shows the superiority of the KJV-Textus Receptus based translations.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.

Do you enjoy plagiarism? Perhaps you would do better to clue people in by at least giving quotation marks to show that these words are not your own.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Why squabble over translation when we haven't even established which Christian NT canon we are talking about?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Deer, the argument regarding the 'best translation' continues. Everybody and everybody's dog has clear-cut and convincing 'proof' their favorite version is not on the best version but the only version God likes and anyone using a 'brand X' version is going to Hell.

Okay, not everyone.

Presuming God actually has a message for His followers, and further presuming God actually wants His followers to get a clear understanding of that message, a good translation is not hard to find.

Saying that, there are some translations which intentionally changed the wording to support their 'pet' theologies. However, I am reasonably sure God will guide you past the pitfalls of the fraudulent versions. Presuming - as I do - God really wants you to understand what He has to say.

So the NIV is just fine. There may be some grammatical errors and no doubt some phrases with whom SOMEONE will disagree. But one who reads and studies what God has set forth will become a useful and competent Christian as a result.

 

[DeaconDean]

So the NIV is just fine.

You know, when I was released from prison, I was attending a small church in my hometown. The Pastor there used the NIV. Now remember that the NIV was still relatively a new thing at this time.

He preached a sermon once on one verse from the NIV which though I didn't know it at the time, was totally wrong!

He based his whole message on 1 Cor. 7:1.

The original NIV as released in 1978 said: "Now, to the things you wrote me about, it is good for a man not to marry."

Now he preached a whole sermon telling people that they should not marry. And I totally disagreed with that.

The editors of the NIV have since changed the reading, but in its original issue, that is what it said because I know, I was given the NIV by a young lady at church as a gift.

I was raised on the KJV. It is the version I study, teach, and preach from. However, I do not limit myself to it alone. I also consult other versions, and always read what the Greek says.

I will say this however, with the exception of the NWT, of all the disputed texts from the Greek to our Bibles, no doctrine on which Christianity stands upon, hinges on these disputed texts.

If the NIV is the version you study, read, etc., then I say God Bless You.

I like the KJV, but I also rely heavily on the Greek text of the NT.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Now he preached a whole sermon telling people that they should not marry. And I totally disagreed with that.

Well, t is not entirely certain whether the words of 1 Cor. 7:1b are the instructions of Paul or Paul quoting the Corinthians. The Greek can be taken either way correctly.

As for that preacher, the fault lay entirely with his exegesis, not with the translation. Anyone who thinks Paul is telling people they should not marry in v. 1 has clearly not read v. 2 or what follows.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, t is not entirely certain whether the words of 1 Cor. 7:1b are the instructions of Paul or Paul quoting the Corinthians. The Greek can be taken either way correctly.

As for that preacher, the fault lay entirely with his exegesis, not with the translation. Anyone who thinks Paul is telling people they should not marry in v. 1 has clearly not read v. 2 or what follows.

Here again, what I found out was a principle that has been forgotten for the last few centuries.

When Paul said: "Now, to the things you wrote me about, it is good for a man not to marry." What he was actually doing was to repeat the question that he was asked.

The Corinthian audience had asked was whether it was good for a man not to marry. And beginning in verse two, we have Paul's response.

Here again, that is why I'm not a fan of the NIV. It can lead to serious error.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Radagast]

I've used NIV almost my whole life, I don't know why but I've always favoured that one and it never seems to make other people's most accurate translation lists. What are everyone's top three?

The NIV is a very accurate translation (at least for the NT; I don't know enough to judge the OT). The ESV is also very good (some say better). And I'm starting to hear good things about the HCSB (Hard Core Southern Baptist ) version.

 

[Radagast]

Well, t is not entirely certain whether the words of 1 Cor. 7:1b are the instructions of Paul or Paul quoting the Corinthians. The Greek can be taken either way

Interestingly, the NIV, ESV, and HCSB all put 7:1b in quotes (indicating that it's Paul quoting the Corinthians), e.g. Now in response to the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman” (HCSB).

 

[Lazarus Short]

And I'm starting to hear good things about the HCSB (Hard Core Southern Baptist ) version.

I had never heard of the HCSB before today, so I did some poking around on the www - it looks like just another CFPV [Copyrighted-For-Profit Version].

 

[TaylorSexton]

Here again, what I found out was a principle that has been forgotten for the last few centuries.

When Paul said: "Now, to the things you wrote me about, it is good for a man not to marry." What he was actually doing was to repeat the question that he was asked.

The Corinthian audience had asked was whether it was good for a man not to marry. And beginning in verse two, we have Paul's response.

Here again, that is why I'm not a fan of the NIV. It can lead to serious error.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I agree that it is Paul quoting the Corinthians. But, that is not the only possibility exegetically from the Greek. Notice also that the KJV and NKJV have the exact same punctuation as the NIV (1984). The NASB doesn't even have a colon, giving absolutely no indication that the words could be a quotation.

Here is the footnote from the NET translation:

Many recent interpreters believe that here again (as in 6:12–13) Paul cites a slogan the Corinthians apparently used to justify their actions. If this is so, Paul agrees with the slogan in part, but corrects it in the following verses to show how the Corinthians misused the idea to justify abstinence within marriage (emphasis added).

So, again, the issue lay not in the translation, but entirely in that preacher's exegesis. Paul very well was likely quoting the Corinthians, but he was also agreeing with them partly. (Remember, he himself was single.) The problem was likely the fact that the preacher only preached one verse and not the entire pericope (it seems to me based on your description of it), which is a serious error common today. No matter what translation you read, if one reads Paul's whole argument (which is what is supposed to be done if one cares about interpreting God's holy Word aright), it is impossible to think that Paul was against marriage. Frankly, only an idiot would believe such a thing.

Such is the insanity of cherry picking.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I agree that it is Paul quoting the Corinthians. But, that is not the only possibility exegetically from the Greek. Notice also that the KJV and NKJV have the exact same punctuation as the NIV (1984). The NASB doesn't even have a colon, giving absolutely no indication that the words could be a quotation.

Here is the footnote from the NET translation:



So, again, the issue lay not in the translation, but entirely in that preacher's exegesis. Paul very well was likely quoting the Corinthians, but he was also agreeing with them partly. (Remember, he himself was single.) The problem was likely the fact that the preacher only preached one verse and not the entire pericope (it seems to me based on your description of it), which is a serious error common today. No matter what translation you read, if one reads Paul's whole argument (which is what is supposed to be done if one cares about interpreting God's holy Word aright), it is impossible to think that Paul was against marriage. Frankly, only an idiot would believe such a thing.

Such is the insanity of cherry picking.

Greek texts of the NT do not have punctuation. The words are not even separated. This form is called continuous script. Thus, punctuation when translating into English is provided by the translators to help with the understanding. Of course, if different punctuation can lead to different interpretations, then you have to allow for translators bias.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The words are not even separated. This form is called continuousscript.

That's only true for majuscules.

Of course, if different punctuation can lead to different interpretations, then you have to allow for translators bias.

My point for this passage is that, regardless of whether or not one sees v. 1b as a quotation, when read in context, it is impossible to believe Paul is arguing against marriage.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That's only true for majuscules.



My point for this passage is that, regardless of whether or not one sees v. 1b as a quotation, when read in context, it is impossible to believe Paul is arguing against marriage.

From Wikipedia 'Biblical manuscript:'

The earliest manuscripts had negligible punctuation and breathing marks. The manuscripts also lacked word spacing, so words, sentences, and paragraphs would be a continuous string of letters (scriptio continua), often with line breaks in the middle of words. Bookmaking was an expensive endeavor, and one way to reduce the number of pages used was to save space. ​

 

[TaylorSexton]

From Wikipedia 'Biblical manuscript:'

The earliest manuscripts had negligible punctuation and breathing marks. The manuscripts also lacked word spacing, so words, sentences, and paragraphs would be a continuous string of letters (scriptio continua), often with line breaks in the middle of words. Bookmaking was an expensive endeavor, and one way to reduce the number of pages used was to save space. ​

Yes, the earliest manuscripts, which were by definition of their style called majuscules.