What translation is the best?

[Anonymous0210]

I've been praying lately and do ask for prayers on this too as well. I want to know what translation of the bible is best. I've been praying that I be guided into the translation thats best for my walk with God? I dont know if that means I'm also asking by extension the best preserved/literal/closest to the original manuscripts. I just want to know and am asking for advice and guidance along with some info. I'm inviting people on here to present their case for why the translation that they recommended is best. What makes you choose your translation? I'm asking for good solid evidence, thanks.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I've been praying lately and do ask for prayers on this too as well. I want to know what translation of the bible is best. I've been praying that I be guided into the translation thats best for my walk with God? I dont know if that means I'm also asking by extension the best preserved/literal/closest to the original manuscripts. I just want to know and am asking for advice and guidance along with some info. I'm inviting people on here to present their case for why the translation that they recommended is best. What makes you choose your translation? I'm asking for good solid evidence, thanks.

I prefer word for word translations like KJV, NKJV, NASB over thought for thought like NIV or some of the others, I personally would avoid any Bible written after 2000 or idea-for-idea bibles. Many of the translators have added to the Bible that has changed the meaning of God's Word. For me personally I like the NKJV and the KJV. No Bible is 100% perfect so I do like to look at other translations on harder verses. The best thing to do before reading the Bible is pray and ask that the Holy Spirit guide you in all Truth and let the Bible be the one to guide you, not all the noise that is around us. God bless!

 

[DragonFox91]

Stay away form paraphrases. You really can't go wrong w/ any of the others. The differences can be small, & are more for readability then anything. It's not like what non-Christians think where we have 1000 different translations & no one knows what it really says. The issue isn't so much we don't know what it says so much as how we want to understand it.

I think NIV is easiest to read & maintains accuracy, but have been to pulled to the ESV as I've gotten older. I also have a Christian Standard

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I've been praying lately and do ask for prayers on this too as well. I want to know what translation of the bible is best. I've been praying that I be guided into the translation thats best for my walk with God? I dont know if that means I'm also asking by extension the best preserved/literal/closest to the original manuscripts. I just want to know and am asking for advice and guidance along with some info. I'm inviting people on here to present their case for why the translation that they recommended is best. What makes you choose your translation? I'm asking for good solid evidence, thanks.

Recently for the English language I tend to prefer the LSB translation which is an iteration of the NASB with an effort to preserve the Name of God in the translation text.

 

[Anonymous0210]

I prefer word for word translations like KJV, NKJV, NASB over thought for thought like NIV or some of the others, I personally would avoid any Bible written after 2000 or idea-for-idea bibles. Many of the translators have added to the Bible that has changed the meaning of God's Word. For me personally I like the NKJV and the KJV. No Bible is 100% perfect so I do like to look at other translations on harder verses. The best thing to do before reading the Bible is pray and ask that the Holy Spirit guide you in all Truth and let the Bible be the one to guide you, not all the noise that is around us. God bless!

View attachment 364581

I know that there was a translation made as an update to the kjv called the MEV. Any thoughts on that?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I know that there was a translation made as an update to the kjv called the MEV. Any thoughts on that?

I haven't used this translation, but I did look at a couple verses I use to test a translation to see if they are adding to it and did not see they were with the couple verses I looked at. Not sure if this helps or not.

 

[Anonymous0210]

I haven't used this translation, but I did look at a couple verses I use to test a translation to see if they are adding to it and did not see they were with the couple verses I looked at. Not sure if this helps or not.

If only I could find a bible where the verses in the ot where God is speaking are in red letters like the kjv and nkjv does for Jesus in the nt.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

I have been using Literal Standard Version (LSV) for a while, via the SWORD Project, and ESV in book form. I agree about the OT red letters, I'd love to see that too.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

If only I could find a bible where the verses in the ot where God is speaking are in red letters like the kjv and nkjv does for Jesus in the nt.

I thought the blue letter bible did so, but after researching further its only the NT.

From what I could find in a quick search

The "I Am Bible" highlights God speaking in the Old Testament. It features God's direct pronouncements in the first 5 books, along with later revelations and commands. Key examples include God's creation narrative in Genesis 1and His covenant with Noah, Abraham, and the Israelites.


I have never heard of this Bible and personally I would rather stick with a more trusted Bible, there are lots of thus saith the Lord’s and many first speaking references in the OT so we know when God is speaking. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you, He will if we are earnestly seeking and willing to do His good will.

God bless!

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I know that there was a translation made as an update to the kjv called the MEV. Any thoughts on that?

Although I appreciate the fairly direct translation approach of KJV/NKJV I prefer translations that use older manuscripts (using the 19th century manuscript findings) - in my opinion the Textus Receptus underlying KJV/NKJV is less accurate/authentic than the manuscripts ESV/NASB/LSB (and other modern translations) use ..

This week I had a detailed look at the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) and I once again noticed how forced the Textus Receptus addition looks in Greek.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Although I appreciate the fairly direct translation approach of KJV/NKJV I prefer translations that use older manuscripts (using the 19th century manuscript findings) - in my opinion the Textus Receptus underlying KJV/NKJV is less accurate/authentic than the manuscripts ESV/NASB/LSB (and other modern translations) use ..

The big debate on the Bibles! I know scholars who say the opposite. It’s why it’s good to also have a bible concordance.

However if one is first reading the bible, I would recommend using one that is word for word but still easy to read. The most important part inviting the power of the Holy Spirit Who promises…..John 14:26

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

The big debate on the Bibles! I know scholars who say the opposite. It’s why it’s good to have a bible concordance as well.

However if one is first reading the bible, I would recommend using on that is word for word but still easy to read.

Sure ... but I have my own conscience to deal with and e.g. the Greek of 1 John 5:7-8

The far majority of Textual Criticism Scholars will side with me though - on this.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Sure ... but I have my own conscience to deal with and e.g. the Greek of John 5:7-8

I pray we all do.

 

[Anonymous0210]

Although I appreciate the fairly direct translation approach of KJV/NKJV I prefer translations that use older manuscripts (using the 19th century manuscript findings) - in my opinion the Textus Receptus underlying KJV/NKJV is less accurate/authentic than the manuscripts ESV/NASB/LSB (and other modern translations) use ..

This week I had a detailed look at the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) and I once again noticed how forced the Textus Receptus addition looks in Greek.

The thing that has me undecided is when certain texts and passages that are in the kjv and nkjv are not included or are but its in brackets because it wasnt in older manuscripts. My thing is though the kjv is arguably the most widely used and one of the most influential english translations and was influential for christianity. So to say that some things in it like the story of the woman caught in adultery for example shouldn't be considered scripture it just keeps me undecided.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

The thing that has me undecided is when certain texts and passages that are in the kjv and nkjv are not included or are but its in brackets because it wasnt in older manuscripts. My thing is though the kjv is arguably the most widely used and one of the most influential english translations and was influential for christianity. So to say that some things in it like the story of the woman caught in adultery for example shouldn't be considered scripture it just keeps me undecided.

A few remarks may be useful at this point:

• something that is most influential does not necessarily equate with being most accurate given the knowledge we have now. E.g. the Latin Vulgate translation by Jerome was the de-facto standard Bible in the Church for nearly a thousand years. Jerome did the best he could in his day and age - and he was living in a Latin speaking world (mostly). Yet the textual knowledge we now possess also highlights the weaknesses of the Vulgate and no one except RC cleric speaks Latin anymore. So luckily translations in languages we now still speak have emerged with more knowledge about what is in all likelihood closest to the original text.
• Erasmus (early 16th century) in Holland did the best he could reconstructing the Textus Receptus (used as the source for Martin Luther's German translation, and later the English translations by William Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and the King James, and the Dutch Statenvertaling). King James ordered his translation because Tyndale's translation was considered too controversial.
• the first full English translation was Wycliffe's (14th century CE), but he translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, not from the Greek (as there was no standardised Greek text before Erasmus).
• the story of the woman caught in adultery from John 8 wasn't written originally by John, but it might very well be a true account - just someone else inserted it later on. But the story still has value and a sense of authenticity (to me).
• the Gospel writers Matthew, Luke and Mark for large parts use a common source - they were not written independently. Matthew originally was written in Hebrew or Aramaic - so the current Greek Gospel of Matthew already is a translation and not the orginal.

We need to look at the big picture and the context.

 

[David Lamb]

If only I could find a bible where the verses in the ot where God is speaking are in red letters like the kjv and nkjv does for Jesus in the nt.

I think there is a danger in doing that of making the words which came out of the physical mouth of Jesus in the New Testament and the words spoken by God the Father in the Old Testament more important than other words in the bible. The whole bible is the word of God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I think there is a danger in doing that of making the words which came out of the physical mouth of Jesus in the New Testament and the words spoken by God the Father in the Old Testament more important than other words in the bible.

I know a lot of people think this, but it was God the Son, in the OT speaking

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

The whole bible is the word of God.

Amen!

 

[David Lamb]

I know a lot of people think this, but it was God the Son, in the OT speaking

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

Amen!

Yes, I agree. Usually when we see "The Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, it means Jesus Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Although I appreciate the fairly direct translation approach of KJV/NKJV I prefer translations that use older manuscripts (using the 19th century manuscript findings) - in my opinion the Textus Receptus underlying KJV/NKJV is less accurate/authentic than the manuscripts ESV/NASB/LSB (and other modern translations) use ..

This week I had a detailed look at the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) and I once again noticed how forced the Textus Receptus addition looks in Greek.

So I am not trying to turn this thread into a debate but since you brought this up I thought we could look at a couple KJV verses who I think got it right over the ESV/NASB

Both ESV/NASB in the Ten Commandments uses "a" Sabbath in the 4th commandment Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.

In the KJV/NKJV both uses"the" Sabbath Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God

To me, there is a big difference between say for example, a pen, or the pen. The first applies to any pen, the second applies to only one. There are more than one sabbath in Scripture the yearly sabbaths that came after the fall, but there is only one weekly Sabbath that is one of the Ten Commandments and points and started at Creation Exo 20:11 Gen 2:1-3 and it is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Exo 20:10

If we look at the Hebrew word here it translates into the Sabbath

shabbath: Sabbath
Original Word: שַׁבָּת
Part of Speech: Noun
Transliteration: shabbath
Pronunciation: shah-BAHTH
Phonetic Spelling: (shab-bawth')
Definition: Sabbath
Meaning: intermission, the Sabbath

Which is the same in Isa 58:13, the Sabbath is the holy day of the Lord, not a holy day of the Lord, so to me there is a big difference.

Like I said no Bible is perfect, including the KJV and I think any word-for-word Bible we can find God's Truth but we do need to be careful because all translations use their own bias in translating so we need to seek diligently the context and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us and be willing to do so, once He reveals Truth.


God bless!

 

[DragonFox91]

Some Bibles print the OT quotes in the NT in bold. I really like that. I was startled the first time I saw a Bible like that how much the whole NT & not just the Gospels, quote the OT.