Bible preferences and a few questions

It's great you are drilling down on the word studies.

My favorite version is the KJV due to my familiarity with it and the beautiful language.

However, it has cultural biases or out dated linguistic forms in its translation with respect to gender.

First, Paul used gender inclusive language every time his comment was not specifically referring to a male human being. Even Christ is described as a person (not a man) whenever his office or functions are referenced, and as a man only in the most limited of cases when Christ's human male form was specifically being referenced. Reading a Bible full of "man" when "people" or "mankind" was specifically written instead changes the flavor significantly to a female reader since she can never really be certain if man/he includes her or not. In the 1600's is was common to reference humanity as "man"; however that linguistic approach leaves many questions to which verses apply to you if you are a woman. We generally filter the references OK, but I recently learned that a significant number of references I had thought were male specific actually were not so.

Second, 1 Timothy 2:12 was poorly translated, likely due to gender biases at that time. Paul actually wrote that "a" womAn should not violently assume authority over a man but should remain quiet (huscia, as in peaceable, not speechless). The KJV writers smoothed out the stridency of authentin into usurp (some translations have downgraded the word even further), and used silent/speachless instead of calm/peacable. The word authentin was not used anywhere else in Scripture. It is not the word that was used elsewhere as authority. The word the KJV translators used for "silent" was translated elsewhere in Scripture as calm/peaceable but only when used in reference to a woman it was translated as silent:

1 Tim 2:11 -- Let the woman learn in silence (2271 hésuchia)
1 Tim 2:12 -- a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (2271 hésuchia)
2 Thess 3:12 -- that with quietness (2271hésuchia) they work, and eat


1 Tim 2:2 -- that we may lead a quiet and peaceable (2272 hésuchios) life in
1 Peter 3:4 -- of a meek and quiet (2272 hésuchios) spirit,


Third, there are many more, but one more example is in Romans 12, starting in v4. Paul's writing was entirely gender neutral, but the translators switched to HE when Paul's list came to teaching, exhorting and ruling:

4For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

There are many other examples, but I trust this will illustrate the problems in our translations from what Paul actually wrote in Greek as stated in English, particularly in the KJV and the ESV.

The ESV translation team proudly boasts that the ESV is a complimentarian Bible which purposefully translated everything that could be "he" as "he" rather than being diligent to the nuances of genders as Paul originally wrote. As you can imagine, there are a number of verses which, as changed, support and even create doctrines not originally identifiable in Paul's writings.

Happy studying!
E.

The best bible is one that you will read. I for one like the website biblegateway because it lets you read a lot of different versions! And you can even put one alongside another and compare passages. For example you can put the KJV beside the NIV and look at how they each write Genesis chapter 1. I think its very illuminating.

I will tell you what little i know. The old testament was written in Hebrew and the new testament in koine greek. The KJV was the first big, circulated bible translation - the Geneva i think its called came before it but there's very few copies remaining. I guess it was smaller in scale? And the guy who translated it got killed.

Bible scholars all differ in their opinions on who wrote a passage and when it was written and what a given Hebrew word means. From what little i know, bible hebrew is a small language. It didnt even have vowels, originally! They had to put them in later. One word in hebrew might have many english translations and supposedly relies heavily on context to determine which one it refers to. Plus there's personal bias, too, that probably plays into things. How you want a verse to be interpretted probably taints how you translate a verse.

What i'm doing is reading a lot of bible translations. I have three windows for it open right now - biblegateway, biblehub, and the NET bible. I hope that by reading lots of different sources, i'll have a more thorough understanding of what a given passage means.

The most important thing is to keep close to God. Pray and pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance. Keep an open mind about interpretation of passages - maybe there's a spiritual or symbolic meaning or a connection to another part of the bible that you never considered before. I find approaching it like this makes me so amazingly happy to read the bible and learn things with the help of the Holy Spirit. What's 'accurate' to one person might be flawed to another person's understanding, but i think you can't really go wrong if you're approaching it with prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Endeavourer said:

It's great you are drilling down on the word studies.

My favorite version is the KJV due to my familiarity with it and the beautiful language.

However, it has cultural biases or out dated linguistic forms in its translation with respect to gender.

First, Paul used gender inclusive language every time his comment was not specifically referring to a male human being. Even Christ is described as a person (not a man) whenever his office or functions are referenced, and as a man only in the most limited of cases when Christ's human male form was specifically being referenced. Reading a Bible full of "man" when "people" or "mankind" was specifically written instead changes the flavor significantly to a female reader since she can never really be certain if man/he includes her or not. In the 1600's is was common to reference humanity as "man"; however that linguistic approach leaves many questions to which verses apply to you if you are a woman. We generally filter the references OK, but I recently learned that a significant number of references I had thought were male specific actually were not so.

Second, 1 Timothy 2:12 was poorly translated, likely due to gender biases at that time. Paul actually wrote that "a" womAn should not violently assume authority over a man but should remain quiet (huscia, as in peaceable, not speechless). The KJV writers smoothed out the stridency of authentin into usurp (some translations have downgraded the word even further), and used silent/speachless instead of calm/peacable. The word authentin was not used anywhere else in Scripture. It is not the word that was used elsewhere as authority. The word the KJV translators used for "silent" was translated elsewhere in Scripture as calm/peaceable but only when used in reference to a woman it was translated as silent:

1 Tim 2:11 -- Let the woman learn in silence (2271 hésuchia)
1 Tim 2:12 -- a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (2271 hésuchia)
2 Thess 3:12 -- that with quietness (2271hésuchia) they work, and eat

2271 hēsyxía (from hēsyxos, "quiet, stillness") – quietness, implying calm; for the believer, 2271 (hēsyxía) is used of their God-produced calm which includes an inner tranquility that supports appropriate action. This term "does not mean speechlessness, which is more directly indicated by 4602 (sigḗ) (J. Thayer).​

1 Tim 2:2 -- that we may lead a quiet and peaceable (2272 hésuchios) life in
1 Peter 3:4 -- of a meek and quiet (2272 hésuchios) spirit,

2272 hēsýxios (an adjective derived from hēsyxos, "quiet, stillness") – properly, quiet (still), i.e. steady (settled) due to a divinely-inspired inner calmness.

2272/hēsyxios ("calmly quiet") describes being "appropriately tranquil" by not misusing (or overusing) words that would stir up needless friction (destructive commotion).​

Third, there are many more, but one more example is in Romans 12, starting in v4. Paul's writing was entirely gender neutral, but the translators switched to HE when Paul's list came to teaching, exhorting and ruling:

4For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

There are many other examples, but I trust this will illustrate the problems in our translations from what Paul actually wrote in Greek as stated in English, particularly in the KJV and the ESV.

The ESV translation team proudly boasts that the ESV is a complimentarian Bible which purposefully translated everything that could be "he" as "he" rather than being diligent to the nuances of genders as Paul originally wrote. As you can imagine, there are a number of verses which, as changed, support and even create doctrines not originally identifiable in Paul's writings.

Happy studying!
E.

Click to expand...

Wow. This is amazing i love it! Is it possible to do a word study like that with no grasp whatsoever of Hebrew or Koine Greek?

A Beloved Servant of God said:

Wow. This is amazing i love it! Is it possible to do a word study like that with no grasp whatsoever of Hebrew or Koine Greek?

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Yes it is. Using an online interlinear (I use Biblehub) you can see exactly what Greek words Paul wrote. If you click on the word you'll be taken to a screen which has a deeper dive into that word, as well as everywhere else that word was used in the Bible.

There are sites focusing on the representations of gender in the Bible which have some information on the particular texts if you wanted to be pointed in that specific direction, but my own studies started organically the way I described above for certain verses that were being used to clobber women. I wanted to understand any nuances that might not have been addressed in the translations.

Once I learned about anthropos (mankind) vs andres (man) in Paul's writings, which were both universally translated to 'man' in the KJV, I needed to take a deeper dive into the issue. It's been a path of discovery I never expected to find, and significantly changed my understanding of Paul's teachings with respect to gender.

Endeavourer said:

Thank you.

Yes it is. Using an online interlinear (I use Biblehub) you can see exactly what Greek words Paul wrote. If you click on the word you'll be taken to a screen which has a deeper dive into that word, as well as everywhere else that word was used in the Bible.

There are sites focusing on the representations of gender in the Bible which have some information on the particular texts if you wanted to be pointed in that specific direction, but my own studies started organically the way I described above for certain verses that were being used to clobber women. I wanted to understand any nuances that might not have been addressed in the translations.

Once I learned about anthropos (mankind) vs andres (man) in Paul's writings, which were both universally translated to 'man' in the KJV, I needed to take a deeper dive into the issue. It's been a path of discovery I never expected to find, and significantly changed my understanding of Paul's teachings with respect to gender.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip! It took me a bit but i think i'm starting to figure out how to use BibleHub. I've never done anything like this before. Just parallel bible reading on biblegateway.

That sounds like a really interesting point to research. I've been interested in studying the bible's view on gender and gender roles, especially Paul's writings cause the first verses that come to mind are his.

The Catholic Church made "changes"?? Where do you think the Bible came from? It was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church at the direction of the Pope, in the mid-4'th Century. After studying, discussing, praying about and discerning hundreds of documents under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for six years, they finally took the 73 texts the Holy Spirit had guided them to include, bound them into one book for the first time, and called that book "Biblios", which is Greek for "the book". Any "changes" that have been made to that original and complete Bible have been made by Protestants, including trashing seven books of God's holy Word that every Christian on Earth had used for the previous 1,100 years. Actually, Luther intended to get rid of three New Testament books as well, but his followers were near the point of rebellion over trashing the writings of the Apostles, so he had to back down on that part of his plan. If he had his way, Protestants would be using an incomplete Bible of 63 books instead of the incomplete Bible of 66 books they do use.

A Beloved Servant of God said:

Thanks for the tip! It took me a bit but i think i'm starting to figure out how to use BibleHub. I've never done anything like this before. Just parallel bible reading on biblegateway.

That sounds like a really interesting point to research. I've been interested in studying the bible's view on gender and gender roles, especially Paul's writings cause the first verses that come to mind are his.

Click to expand...

With respect to that, here has been an interesting resource:
Marg Mowczko | Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

Another interesting resource:
Home | CBE International

This site was instrumental in opening my eyes to realize that my understanding of key verses were heavily filtered:
A Cry For Justice
--use the search bar to search out verses used to demand/guilt a wife's acquiescence to abuse

I purchased Dr. Paynes book:
Philip B. Payne - Here I answer questions about my new book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" and provide its complete Bibliography and Supplemental Studies.

I also purchased this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Paul-Women-Jon-Zens/dp/0976522292

Not all of these resources agree with each other, but I found fascinating information in all of them that inspired me to want to search out each proposed new paradigm for myself.

Hi Littlek,

I usually recommend the English Standard Version (ESV) as the best modern translation. You could add the New American Standard Bible (NASB 1995) as well. They are very similar and accuracy is about the same. The New King James Version (NKJV) is also a fine translation. I do not have any experience with the NIV.

As for the KJV, it is the translation I grew up with. It is a fine translation and a monument to 17th century scholarship. The problems I have are that the language is archaic and sometime unintelligible to modern readers without some sort of assistance. If you want to stick with the KJV I recommend this printing:

Westminster Reference Bible (calfskin) - Black [90/UBK] - Trinitarian Bible Society - USA

You might try Amazon once in a while because I purchased one for a friend earlier this year and it was $58 with free shipping. This is hands down the best printing of any bible in production for the money. I mean much better quality and construction than Cambridge at half the price. This version has helps in the columns for english words that are no longer used or had a different meaning in 17th century England. And of course there are translation footnotes and a concordance.

All that said I still recommend a modern translation that you can and will actually read. As for the original languages ideally you would want to learn them. Interlinear bibles are ok, and may shed some light but often won't be able to tell you things like grammar, function in the sentence and so forth because the word order is different. I would stick with a good translation and a good commentary. The ESV Study Bible is my favorite one volume bible/commentary. It's solidly orthodox and update to date with scholarship as of 2008. Another idea is if you like software versions you can download Esword and download the ESV translation for free along with the KJV. e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC

Littlek said:

I know this is more of a personal preference, but I am looking for the best English translation as close to the original words as I can get.

This is my understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong. The first written word, (Old Testament, also the Torah?) were the Dead Sea scrolls, written in ancient Hebrew. (Which is more or less symbols, I think) then the next was modern Hebrew? Do we know when the first English translation of the modern Hebrew word?

So the first written languages (Hebrew)from what I understand didn’t have vowels, but they spoke with vowel sounds? I have researched languages a little bit, but wow, so much to learn. I couldn’t wrap my head around it lol. Esp translating to another language.

Right now I have a KJV (women’s study, newer version, so probably not the best)..the NIV 2005 version.
I went out and bought the Interlinear Bible, Hebrew/Greek/English with the new expanded strongs dictionary...and out of curiosity I bought the 1611 KJV. I feel like maybe the modern Hebrew is the best one to read?

So, this is my hang up...I know there have been changes probably over thousands of years. If satan, and I believe there is one verse that says he will deceive all, except for the most elite, if it were possible? has ever had someone change things intentionally? Jesus did say if anyone takes or adds changes to this book he will add plagues etc. So does this mean it IS/WAS possible for someone to do that? Because he did warn against it...so that makes me think, it could be altered without God stopping it, but send plagues? Sorry just trying to understand.

And not stepping on anyone’s beliefs..but i do not want anything related to or written from the Roman Catholic Church...I know they made changes too..that’s why I question some of the KJV. BUT that is another post for Christianity history. It is so much to dig through...to me you have to study the Bible AND history, people, which piles up to the heavens with information lol.

Thanks for your advice. I really want to study Christian history too..but that’s another thread.

Click to expand...

The Dead Sea Scrolls (also Qumran Caves Scrolls) are ancient Jewish religious manuscripts found in the Qumran Caves in the Judaean Desert, near Ein Feshkha on the northern shore of the Dead Sea.[1] Scholarly consensus dates these scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE.[2] The texts have great historical, religious, and linguistic significance because they include the second-oldest known surviving manuscripts of works later included in the Hebrew Bible canon, along with deuterocanonical and extra-biblical manuscripts which preserve evidence of the diversity of religious thought in late Second Temple Judaism. Almost all of the Dead Sea Scrolls are currently in the collection of the Government of the State of Israel, with ownership disputed with Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, and they are housed in the Shrine of the Book on the grounds of the Israel Museum.

Many thousands of written fragments have been discovered in the Dead Sea area. They represent the remnants of larger manuscripts damaged by natural causes or through human interference, with the vast majority holding only small scraps of text. However, a small number of well-preserved, almost intact manuscripts have survived – fewer than a dozen among those from the Qumran Caves.[2] Researchers have assembled a collection of 981 different manuscripts – discovered in 1946/47 and in 1956 – from 11 caves.[3] The 11 Qumran Caves lie in the immediate vicinity of the Hellenistic-period Jewish settlement at Khirbet Qumran in the eastern Judaean Desert, in the West Bank.[4] The caves are located about one mile (1.6 kilometres) west of the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, whence they derive their name. Scholarly consensus dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE.[2] Bronze coins found at the same sites form a series beginning with John Hyrcanus (in office 135–104 BCE) and continuing until the period of the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), supporting the radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the scrolls.[5]

In the larger sense, the Dead Sea Scrolls include manuscripts from additional Judaean Desert sites, dated as early as the 8th century BCE and as late as the 11th century CE.[1]

Biblical texts older than the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered only in two silver scroll-shaped amulets containing portions of the Priestly Blessing from the Book of Numbers, excavated in Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom and dated c. 600 BCE; some scholars also include the controversial Shapira Scroll. The third-oldest surviving known piece of the Torah, the En-Gedi Scroll, consists of a portion of Leviticus found in the Ein Gedi synagogue, burnt in the 6th century CE and analyzed in 2015. Research has dated it palaeographically to the 1st or 2nd century CE, and using the C14 method to sometime between the 2nd and 4th centuries CE.[6]

Most of the texts use Hebrew, with some written in Aramaic (for example the Son of God text; in different regional dialects, including Nabataean), and a few in Greek.[7] Discoveries from the Judaean Desert add Latin (from Masada) and Arabic (from Khirbet al-Mird) texts.[8] Most of the texts are written on parchment, some on papyrus, and one on copper.[9]

Archaeologists have long associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem, or Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls.[10][11]

Owing to the poor condition of some of the scrolls, scholars have not identified all of their texts. The identified texts fall into three general groups:

1. About 40% are copies of texts from the Hebrew Scriptures.
2. Approximately another 30% are texts from the Second Temple Period which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc.
3. The remainder (roughly 30%) are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group (sect) or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk, and The Rule of the Blessing.

The Bible verse you're referring to is
Matthew 24:24 For false christ's and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

These aren't the Elite.. These are just Gods Chosen Elected, Predestined Children. And these people can not be deceived, the Bible says IF POSSIBLE

And its not possible.

I suggest the NASB 1995 Version of the Bible. It's a transliteration.

One of the reasons we see different versions of the Bible is because of the number of manuscripts available. There are over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts known to date, along with over 10,000 Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts and over 19,000 copies in Syriac, Coptic, Latin & Aramaic languages. The Oldest papyrus fragment is in England at the John Rylands Library of Manchester University called, P52. The fragment dates no later than AD 150 and as early as AD 100.

Manuscript Families

Scholars have divided these ancient manuscripts into two main families: Alexandrian text type (also called Neutral or Egyptian) and the Byzantine text type (also called the Majority Text).

• The Byzantine text type looks at all the manuscripts and determines the final reading by what the majority of the manuscripts say.
• Rather than looking for a collective majority, the Alexandrian text type looks mainly at the date of the manuscript and the region of the world it’s from.

Translation Philosophy

Once the manuscript families are determined for the translation of the Bible, translators need to decide what translation philosophy they will follow. There are 3 main philosophies: formal equivalence, functional equivalence, and optimal equivalence.

1. Formal Equivalencefocuses on translating word-for-word and strives to be as literal as possible. Bibles that fall under the formal equivalence philosophy would be the ESV, KJV, and NASB.
2. Functional Equivalencefocuses on a thought-for-thought (Dynamic equivalence) translation. Its goal is making the text easy to read and easier to understand. Bibles that fall in this camp are would be the NLT an NIV.
3. Optimal Equivalenceis a balance of word-for-word and though-for-thought where needed for the reader to better understand. The HCSB would be considered an optimal equivalence approach.

You will also find Bibles that are paraphrased but lack accuracy and sometimes go beyond a thought-for-thought approach. These Bibles are good to better understand the story or text, but for expository preaching it’s best to stick with a word-for-word or thought-for-thought Bible.

Littlek said:

I know this is more of a personal preference, but I am looking for the best English translation as close to the original words as I can get.

This is my understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong. The first written word, (Old Testament, also the Torah?) were the Dead Sea scrolls, written in ancient Hebrew. (Which is more or less symbols, I think) then the next was modern Hebrew? Do we know when the first English translation of the modern Hebrew word?

So the first written languages (Hebrew)from what I understand didn’t have vowels, but they spoke with vowel sounds? I have researched languages a little bit, but wow, so much to learn. I couldn’t wrap my head around it lol. Esp translating to another language.

Right now I have a KJV (women’s study, newer version, so probably not the best)..the NIV 2005 version.
I went out and bought the Interlinear Bible, Hebrew/Greek/English with the new expanded strongs dictionary...and out of curiosity I bought the 1611 KJV. I feel like maybe the modern Hebrew is the best one to read?

So, this is my hang up...I know there have been changes probably over thousands of years. If satan, and I believe there is one verse that says he will deceive all, except for the most elite, if it were possible? has ever had someone change things intentionally? Jesus did say if anyone takes or adds changes to this book he will add plagues etc. So does this mean it IS/WAS possible for someone to do that? Because he did warn against it...so that makes me think, it could be altered without God stopping it, but send plagues? Sorry just trying to understand.

And not stepping on anyone’s beliefs..but i do not want anything related to or written from the Roman Catholic Church...I know they made changes too..that’s why I question some of the KJV. BUT that is another post for Christianity history. It is so much to dig through...to me you have to study the Bible AND history, people, which piles up to the heavens with information lol.

Thanks for your advice. I really want to study Christian history too..but that’s another thread.

Click to expand...

The changes you speak of are either non existent or are simply misspelled words and such. Nothing that alters the Bible. The saying that the scriptures have been changed, added to and taken away from over the ages is just that.A saying that people repeat and think has scholarly evidence.

Except one big change. And that has to do with the Masoretic text. It is the only Hebrew Bible we have had since 100 ad. The script it uses is a modified Hebrew script. The most modern. Developed in the 1st century. It was compiled by a small group of very anti-Christ rabbis who are known by name. They blamed a Jesus for the destruction of Jerusalem. Were at the forefront of urging the Roman emperor to persecute Christians. We’re appalled at how many Jews were Christians and how easy it was to win them. So they created what we now call Judaism, designed to separate Jewish people from Christians.

The Masoretic text was the OT manuscript that the Protestants used to translate our Bibles from. If you read your KJV you may notice a half dozen verses or so that are prophecies about Jesus from the OT. But when you look at the OT they are not there, not the same. These authors of the Masoretic text did that. We know that for 3 reasons. One. The Greek Septuagint that proceeded the Masoretic text by 300 years has them correctly. The Septuagint was the Bible the church used for 1500 years and was well known and used by Hebrews and others in the Greek world for those hundreds of years. We have hundreds of ancient copies of the Septuagint.

Number two.
Ancient Christian writers complained that there was a group of Jewish Rabbis altering the Hebrew OT that Christians for the most part had no access too. The only had the Greek OT.

#3 as you have alluded to. The Paleo Hebrew and Greek Dead Sea Scrolls have verified those half dozen verses were altered.

Unfortunately they made one other alteration that is incredibly significant. They loped off, if I remember correctly 1500 or 1800 years from the Bible’s timeline back to the creation. Again this is verified by the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why did they do this? Apparently they were embarrassed by the ages pre flood people were having babies. Something else to but I can’t remember. This alteration has been incredibly damaging in comparing the Bible’s timelines to ancient civilization archeology. It has caused a lot of unnecessary disrepute for the Bible in that field of science.

You’ve done well buying an interlinear. It will aid you greatly. First if you think you have gotten a good understanding of some scripture. You can check to see if your understanding isn’t based on some mistranslation. All the Bible’s have them. Did you say you bought an NI? Beware. That is a “dynamic translation.” Meaning instead of a word for word translation. They put what they think is the meaning of the verse into the translation of the words. If you read your inter Linear A lot. You’ll see their translation is often just garbage.

Also check out BibleHub. All the translations are there plus an awesome interlinear that makes checking easy. Plus please read the instructions on the Strongs and your interlinear. Many do not which leads them astray.

Littlek said:

I know this is more of a personal preference, but I am looking for the best English translation as close to the original words as I can get.

Click to expand...

Which English version do you think you understand the best, accurately?

Did you mention why you want the best English translation ? (different reasons bring perhaps different results/answers every day)