Is there is any %100 accurate English translation for the bible?

[Knight]

I thought I was specific....

You have made the claim that the KJV is inerrant.... Meaning it is without error. What standard do you compare it to in order to know this?

 

[TwinCrier]

The same standard you used to decide all bibles are inperfect, my God-given judgement. Now I'm sure you did much study and soul searching as well and came to your conclusion as well. Whatever error or fault you found with the KJV has not been recognized by myself. Perhaps you don't believe God has preserved His word in scripture, but I do, and I found it in the KJV. The choice was not between the KJV and all the hundres of other versions, but between can God and did God give us His word in writing. Since you don't believe the newer versions are infallible either, why do you want me to quit reading my KJV?

 

[kitkat60]

"Perhaps you don't believe God has preserved His word in scripture, but I do, and I found it in the KJV. The choice was not between the KJV and all the hundres of other versions, but between can God and did God give us His word in writing. Since you don't believe the newer versions are infallible either, why do you want me to quit reading my KJV?"

Let me get this straight. Because some of us do not believe that the KJV is the ONLY inspired word of God, that means we don't believe that He has preserved His word for us? And that because I don't believe that the KJV is the only way to go, that I am choosing to believe that God cannot or did not give us His word in writing? Pretty sweeping statements. Speaking for myself, I believe that the Holy Bible itself is the Word of God, and I do not make judgements that one version is more Godly than others.

And with respect to your last sentence, I don't think ANYBODY has suggested that you quit reading the KJV. . I am happy for you that you find your inspiration in the KJV. I find it very unfortunate that you appear to be so intolerant of Christians who may find their inspiration in a different, yet equally valid translation.

Done beating my head against a wall here, best to ya.

 

[TwinCrier]

Now I never said any of those things you claim kitkat. I am not intolerant at all. It is those who attack the KJV and those who believe it is inerrant that are. Okay, so you believe all the versions are equal. I don't. We disagree. I'm not intolerant because I refuse to believe as you.

 

[PaladinValer]

Hmmm, since the Vulgate wasn't written with the TR, I guess we were without a Bible until 1611. Strange...

 

[TwinCrier]

Well since many of you believe God's word is only in the original manuscripts, we supposedly don't have a real bible today anyway. The scriptures have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD. Fortunately the wonderful word is now available in English. And if the King James doesn't fil your doctrine, someone will rewrite the bible to fit your beliefs.

 

[inhimitrust]

There is no such thing as a "most accurate" translation, as if there were, we wouldn't have 100's of different denominations and interpretations of God's Book.
The new NET bible[excellent notes], Youngs Literal translation and the ESV, are good, along with NKJV and NIV, but I still use lexicons to accurately translate it as best as I can, looking at context, context and context. You may have to read a whole paragraph or even a chapter to find the real meaning of a word, then use a program such as Esword or good lexicon to look at how many times a word is used and try to use the same word or as close to it as you can.
The most misuses words are "earth"(usually represents Israel or Jerusalem in most of the contextes), "world" and "land". The other is "age" and I feel the more people actually study the bible on their own for the true meaning of God's words, the more it will become clear, as God truly does help those with the truth of His words if they ask in faith and prayer for Him to help us with it. Stay away from sites and books as much as possible and just stick with pure scripture. Just my own humble opinion.

Olive tree is excellent as you can use up to a dozen translation, with lexicon(KJV/strong's) on one page. I love it!!!

http://netbible.bible.org/
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/
http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

 

[Asar'el]

There is no such thing as a "most accurate" translation, as if there were, we wouldn't have 100's of different denominations and interpretations of God's Book.

One does not follow the other. Having many denominations or interpretations, or indeed, translations, does not preclude one from being 'most accurate'; it can (and I believe does) show failure to recognize that fact.

The new NET bible[excellent notes], Youngs Literal translation and the ESV, are good, along with NKJV and NIV, but I still use lexicons to accurately translate it as best as I can, looking at context, context and context. You may have to read a whole paragraph or even a chapter to find the real meaning of a word, then use a program such as Esword or good lexicon to look at how many times a word is used and try to use the same word or as close to it as you can.

I guess we all have methods to our study; but surely we can recognize the differences between us ? As someone said earlier, you believe these versions are good (perhaps as good as any ?); I (and others), believe differently; I agree (and obviously believe) that the King James translation is the best (including 'most accurate') English translation available today; I believe it is true Scripture, the word of God preserved from generation to generation forever; inerrant. I do not hold any other contemporary English translation in the same regard; but I recognize others do, and to yet others the issue is altogether unimportant.

The most misuses words are "earth"(usually represents Israel or Jerusalem in most of the contextes), "world" and "land". The other is "age" and I feel the more people actually study the bible on their own for the true meaning of God's words, the more it will become clear, as God truly does help those with the truth of His words if they ask in faith and prayer for Him to help us with it. Stay away from sites and books as much as possible and just stick with pure scripture. Just my own humble opinion.

I find it ... amusing ... when folks suggest we can do better (in essence this is what the above passage seems like, at least to me) than the scholars God called together and gifted with the wisdom to the work of producing the King James bible. Stay away from sites and books? Is this meant to imply those that wrote books in times past did not have the benefit of the Holy Spirit? Surely the witness of the blessings God has bestowed on the King James bible, and the many writings of reformers, and followers of Christ from the time of Christ to this day, does not support such an attitude! Is it not prideful when we think we can do better than they all? ( [web?] sites, being a more modern invention, I might have an easier time accepting this argument - but then, a new site can show old wisdom )

Olive tree is excellent as you can use up to a dozen translation, with lexicon(KJV/strong's) on one page. I love it!!!

Your opinion is noted, yet not agreed with. There was a time when I thought much as you seem to; but God has driven me to study the origins of modern translations, and I am satisfied (for myself) they are in error, and I cannot in good conscience agree that they are as good (far from it!) as the King James version.

 

[inhimitrust]

I won't disagree with you on what you believe (as far as the KJV, which is a very good translation) as I first read the NIV last year when God came to me and I found it very good and I still read it. As a matter of fact , I bought the NIV chronological bible and am very pleased with it. I read the bible as mostly fulfilled, so I always read it from genesis to revelation and it comes more alive for me each time. My favorit hobby though is deeply studying the bible, and have been for the last 6 months, and the book of revelation is the most fascinating book to me, but because of all the OT jewish symbolism and figuratism in it, I am using multi translations, lexions and esword to delve into it. Kind of like working on a "devine God inspired jigsaw puzzle".
No matter what version a person uses, if they believe in God and Jesus Christ, there is no reason a person can't read the Book for just the pure knowledge of how God works thru His people and what a gracious and wonderfull God He is. He pulled me out of the "pit" and I have been thanking Him ever since and devote my whole life to Him and His Son as does my family now also. The bible is indeed the most wonderfull Book on this earth, bar none!!!
Thanks for your insight and God bless you and yours.

 

[kitkat60]

No matter what version a person uses, if they believe in God and Jesus Christ, there is no reason a person can't read the Book for just the pure knowledge of how God works thru His people and what a gracious and wonderfull God He is. He pulled me out of the "pit" and I have been thanking Him ever since and devote my whole life to Him and His Son as does my family now also. The bible is indeed the most wonderfull Book on this earth, bar none!!!
Thanks for your insight and God bless you and yours.

This is how I feel too. FWIW, I have never stated that the KJV was inerrant. Quite honestly the verses that get everyone in a tizzy....I have never read one of the reputedly wrong or unclear verses and thought AHA!!!! None of them have ever changed my fundamental beliefs. I regularly cross reference for clarity, pray for discernment and context, and regulary use different versions, including (GASP!) the KJV online. Regardless, there are certain things that until we are with God in heaven, we must take on faith. Until that time I pray for God to continue to teach me and enlighten me and show me His ways.

 

[PaladinValer]

Well since many of you believe God's word is only in the original manuscripts, we supposedly don't have a real bible today anyway.

The real Bible is Jesus of Nazareth, the True Word of God.

In addition, you misrepresent their views. The original manuscripts and copies, being original, are the only perfectly accurate rendition of the written Bible. Bibles today are still true Bibles in every sense of the word; they just aren't based on the originals, so there will undoubtibly be some inaccuracies. Textual criticism as well as continued archaeological finds as well as advances in linguistics find many of these errors, but we can never 100% truly know we got it perfectly until we have a template to base it on; the "control subject" in a scientific experiment if you will.

The Bible has been preserved; no one denies that. What is denied however is the authority of the Bible by KJV-Os, who don't realize that even the 1611 KJV contains inaccuracies. There is, in fact, no 1st edition of the KJV; even while the original writing of its pages was going on, errors were found and corrected. Thus, the "1st edition" is really a 1st/2nd edition syncreticism.

And sorry to say this, but if God perfectly preserved the Bible as KJV-Os claim, it must be utterly perfect the first time around; no spelling mistakes, no double spacings, no errors at all. Even one error is beyond God, even the smallest. Such errors still exist in modern KJVs today. The only logical conclusion, based on the inerrancy of God, is tha the KJV isn't perfect and isn't preserved in the sense that KJV-Os believe, and therefore, KJV-O makes no sense.

Let G=God
Let E=Error
Let K=KJV
Let T=Typos

Premise 1 G -> ~E
Premise 2 K -> T
Premise 3 T -> E
Step no 1 Assume K -> ~E; AIP
Step no 2 K -> E by 2&3; Modus Tolins
Step no 3 X by steps 1&2; No Contradictions
Step no 4 K -> E by Premise 1 through Step no 3; IP

 

[inhimitrust]

This is how I feel too. FWIW, I have never stated that the KJV was inerrant. Quite honestly the verses that get everyone in a tizzy....I have never read one of the reputedly wrong or unclear verses and thought AHA!!!! None of them have ever changed my fundamental beliefs. I regularly cross reference for clarity, pray for discernment and context, and regulary use different versions, including (GASP!) the KJV online. Regardless, there are certain things that until we are with God in heaven, we must take on faith. Until that time I pray for God to continue to teach me and enlighten me and show me His ways.

That is the whole idea of the bible, FAITH. It is hard for us on our own to believe in something we don't see with our own eyes, and that is why reading the Bible is so important, no matter which version one reads, as just knowing God exists as supreme Creator over all is the most important thing in our lives. The first time I read the bible thru (NIV), I got the main "Message", that God saved us from the dark abyss of sin by sending us the true Light of His words, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to dwell in us. One must read and meditate on His words DAILY, or our spiritual life will start getting drained and emptied. The Words of God in the bible is our bread and water and the Words of Life itself along with constant praying and talking with God. I do use a companion with it, Oswald Chambers' My Utmost For His Highest" as it shows how we become Desciples of God thru Belief and following His Son and the Words He spoke.

 

[Knight]

The same standard you used to decide all bibles are inperfect, my God-given judgement. Now I'm sure you did much study and soul searching as well and came to your conclusion as well.

By what standard did you judge?

Perhaps you don't believe God has preserved His word in scripture,

Not true.

but I do, and I found it in the KJV.

I agree. However, His word is also preserved in the NIV, NASB, etc....

The choice was not between the KJV and all the hundres of other versions, but between can God and did God give us His word in writing.

Of course He gave us His word in writing. However, that was given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We're talking about translations here.

Since you don't believe the newer versions are infallible either, why do you want me to quit reading my KJV?

Please show me exactly where I told you to quit reading your KJV...... I assure you I did no such thing.

I believe that no translations are infallable. However, I believe that they are sufficient to communicate God's word in a language that I can understand since I can't read the original languages. (I've thought about learning Greek though.......)

You continue to contend that the KJV is inerrant yet you provide no standard whereby we can know that it is inerrant. You contend that God will preserve His word but provide no evedince that the KJV, and the KJV only, is that preserved word in english.

 

[ClementofRome]

I have been following this thread closely (even jumped in earlier), and it occurs to me that there is an additional presupposition of the KJV-O position that is being left out of the equation (if I missed this in an earlier post, I apologize)...

God has blessed English speakers ONLY with his inerrant Word. If I were to take the TR and pray for God's Spirit to guide me, would I produce an inerrant Spanish translation? (I know, the knee-jerk response is that "YES, IF His Spirit guided you to do so, it would be inerrant").

Are there speakers of any other language in the world that have access to God's inerrant Word? The KJV-O answer MUST be NO! Or else, the argument again fails.

 

[TwinCrier]

By what standard did you judge?

For the last time, I studies the different versions, about how they were translated and the manuscroipts used

Not true.

I agree. However, His word is also preserved in the NIV, NASB, etc....

Since those versions are missing words and entire verses then they must be incomplete.

[/UOTE]Of course He gave us His word in writing. However, that was given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We're talking about translations here.[/QUOTE]Right. Now which language do you speak? Shouldn't people read the bible in the language they are fluent in? Certainly you aren't suggesting that since I can't read any of those languages I am not worthy to read God's word

Please show me exactly where I told you to quit reading your KJV...... I assure you I did no such thing.

Oh, I know you don't care if I stop reading it, but you do seem bothered that I believe it to be God's inerrant word.

I believe that no translations are infallable. However, I believe that they are sufficient to communicate God's word in a language that I can understand since I can't read the original languages. (I've thought about learning Greek though.......)

If no translations are fallible, yet you believe they are all God's word, then God's word in fallible. I disagree.

You continue to contend that the KJV is inerrant yet you provide no standard whereby we can know that it is inerrant. You contend that God will preserve His word but provide no evedince that the KJV, and the KJV only, is that preserved word in english.

Well, since my mark of measure that God has preserved His word is the bible and you believe the bible is fallible, it would be circular reasoning. However, there are volumes of books on the subject if you are truly interested in learning. I suggest though, comparing verse to verse and asking yourself (or better yet, ask God through prayer) which version exalts God, and which exalts man.

 

[TwinCrier]

I have been following this thread closely (even jumped in earlier), and it occurs to me that there is an additional presupposition of the KJV-O position that is being left out of the equation (if I missed this in an earlier post, I apologize)...

God has blessed English speakers ONLY with his inerrant Word. If I were to take the TR and pray for God's Spirit to guide me, would I produce an inerrant Spanish translation? (I know, the knee-jerk response is that "YES, IF His Spirit guided you to do so, it would be inerrant").

Are there speakers of any other language in the world that have access to God's inerrant Word? The KJV-O answer MUST be NO! Or else, the argument again fails.

There are copies of God's word in other languages. No KJVO disagrees with that. But why should I read a bible written in Thai any more than I would read Greek or Hebrew? "If" God's word has been accurately translated to the second most common language in the world, and I speak English and all my bibles are English, then, well, I'm going to read the English. On the other hand, if all bibles are full of errors, why read it at all?

 

[Reader Nilus]

I have been following this thread closely (even jumped in earlier), and it occurs to me that there is an additional presupposition of the KJV-O position that is being left out of the equation (if I missed this in an earlier post, I apologize)...

God has blessed English speakers ONLY with his inerrant Word. If I were to take the TR and pray for God's Spirit to guide me, would I produce an inerrant Spanish translation? (I know, the knee-jerk response is that "YES, IF His Spirit guided you to do so, it would be inerrant").

Are there speakers of any other language in the world that have access to God's inerrant Word? The KJV-O answer MUST be NO! Or else, the argument again fails.

It is an article of blind faith for the KJV-O to believe that it and no other English Bible, is the Bible. There is no reason to believe that at all given the fact that the very texts King James had at hand were not even the best of the Byzantine text type. Of course such a belief has nothing to do with Christianity.
Jeff the Finn

 

[TwinCrier]

Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to be founded upon corrupted manuscripts. Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort; in foot-notes and translations, have changed the Greek in about 6,000 places. This is why there so many omissions in our modern Bibles, because there were omissions in the scribed text. The R in NRSV stands for revised. Revised means changed.

 

[daveleau]

What about the historical data that shows that scribes often inserted their own descriptions or emphasis to aid in understanding? Many believe that in most cases the shorter versions (omissions or omissions of additions) are the more accurate ones.

 

[TwinCrier]

I remember reading somewhere that it was common practice that if an error was made, instead of crossing it out, the entire page was discarded. I think that would be a discouragement to adding extra words, especially when writing by hand. I know my hands hurt after doing a lot of writing, and this was long before word processors. It seems more likely they would choose to leave words out in order to finish faster. JMO