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

[ClementofRome]

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?

I apologize for the lack of my understanding here, but since you say that there ARE "copies of God's word in other languages"....please tell me which ones they are?

And of course, I was not suggesting that YOU read anything but your KJV, however, there are people of God all over the world who do NOT read English and you seem to be suggesting that they learn it and darn well learn it now....otherwise they will be deficient of access to "God's word."

Again, I am sorry, but your response above hardly seems to address the question that I posed.

 

[RVincent]

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

No. That should be obvious to anybody who has access to study tools.

 

[RVincent]

For example, I use the Companion Bible, which utilizes the KJV. It provides a companion column for correcting errors, pointing out Hebrew idioms, Massoratic note...etc.

(Psa 29:6) He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.​

Do you know what a unicorn is? It's a horse with a candle growing out of its head!

The word in the Hebrew is re'em and it means a wild bull. The KJV is not perfect.

What about the NIV? Perfect?

(Mark 13:17) How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!​

"Women" and "mothers" is nowhere in the Manuscripts!

Of course, this begs the question, "Well, who else besides women can give birth?" And I'm so glad you asked...

(Jer 30:6a) "Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child?..."​

Can men give birth to babies?

(Jer 30:6b) "...wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?

(Jer 30:7) Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.​

so that none is like it: Cp. Matt. 24:21.

Christ is coming for a virgin (2 Cor. 11:1-3). But if He returns and finds His "virgin" giving suck to a child, what does that mean? She has been unfaithful, married the false husband (Cp. Rev. 18:7), and is nursing his beast system. Woe to you who do that. (Cp. Luke 23:28-30 and Rev. 6:16).

The NIV translation completely takes away from the meaning of the passage. Imperfection through additions.

 

[TwinCrier]

I apologize for the lack of my understanding here, but since you say that there ARE "copies of God's word in other languages"....please tell me which ones they are?

And of course, I was not suggesting that YOU read anything but your KJV, however, there are people of God all over the world who do NOT read English and you seem to be suggesting that they learn it and darn well learn it now....otherwise they will be deficient of access to "God's word."

Again, I am sorry, but your response above hardly seems to address the question that I posed.

I can't very well tell you which bibles in other languages are proper translations other than to say those translated from the texus receptus. Even if I found out what they were, I doubt I could even pronounce their title. I'm not suggesting that people have to learn English, but rather that English speaking people should use the Word of God in English as opposed to a version that's paraphrased or tranliterated from corrupt manuscripts.

KJV
​

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NASB
​

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

NIV
​

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

 

[TwinCrier]

...but why are you asking about other languages? Are ypou saying that while you don't believe there is a 100% accurate version in English you might accept a version in another language as being infallible? Most KJV critics don't believe ANY bible on Earth is without error.

 

[ClementofRome]

Alas, if it were for the salvation of souls, I might continue to fight. I won't give credit for strength of argument, but I will give you credit for sheer tenacity.

The "corrupt manuscript" argument has been handled by several above, so I guess that we agree that we are driven by our presuppositions and assumptions (at least I will admit that I am... not putting words into your mouth) and put it to rest.

As you were....

 

[inhimitrust]

The site I put below is an excellent site on the language and interpretations of the old greek, hebrew, aramaic of the first centuries. It was invaluable to me as I am using 10 different translations to make as much of a word for word literal tanslation of all of Paul's epistles and also the book of Hebrews and John's gospel.
These are the most eloquent and most forcefull speaking books in the bible and demand the exact way it was written and spoken in that age, even if it sounds "awkward" to a new reader of the bible, it is important for the desciple of Christ to have it as accurately translated and read for the really deeper and inspired message that God wrote to us all thru His Son, Jesus and the authors of the books of the bible. A true follower of Christ will always get God's true message in almost any version of the bible, and actually it is better to start off with a simple translation at first(I started off with an NIV my daughter had), then progress to more literal word for word translations. Some bibles don't use the same english words for the same greek(hebrew) word uniformally (as much as possible anyway) and some shorten sentences to keep from using the same word 4 times in a row, but instead use a comma(Paul writes quite often like this and every word needs to be used, not taken out).
This site is excellent for those really serious in understanding the bible in the language it was written and the most inspired way to read God's words as written by the inspired authors of the bible. It even gives instances on how verses translated from English to another language sounds when read by non english readers (this will surprise you )God bless you and yours with peace and grace.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html

These translations courtesy of this site and am using this to get as much as a word for word literal translation mainly for deeper bible study. I use a regular NIV for just reading(which is what I started with when God came into my life last year, but I do read the NASB, NKJV and Youngs's also):
http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

(NKJV) Romans 1:5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name,

(NASB) Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake,

(KJV) Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

(TEV) Romans 1:5 Through him God gave me the privilege of being an apostle for the sake of Christ, in order to lead people of all nations to believe and obey.

(RSV) Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

(ISV NT) Romans 1:5 Through him we received grace and a commission as an apostle to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name.

(ASV) Romans 1:5 through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name's sake;

(Darby) Romans 1:5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship in behalf of his name, for obedience of faith among all the nations,

(Young) Romans 1:5 through whom we did receive grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, in behalf of his name;

(MKJV (Green)) Romans 1:5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship, to obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name;

(LITV (Green)) Romans 1:5 by whom we received grace and apostleship to obedience of faith among all the nations, for His name's sake,

(Greek NT - Byz./Maj.) Romans 1:5 di ou elabomen carin kai apostolhn eiV upakohn pistewV en pasin toiV eqnesin uper tou onomatoV autou

(Greek NT - Textus Rec.) Romans 1:5 di ou elabomen carin kai apostolhn eiV upakohn pistewV en pasin toiV eqnesin uper tou onomatoV autou

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Romans 1:5 di <1223> {BY} ou <3739> {WHOM} elabomen <2983> (5627) {WE RECEIVED} carin <5485> {GRACE} kai <2532> {AND} apostolhn <651> {APOSTLESHIP} eiV <1519> {UNTO} upakohn <5218> {OBEDIENCE} pistewV <4102> {OF FAITH} en <1722> {AMONG} pasin <3956> {ALL} toiV <3588> {THE} eqnesin <1484> {NATIONS,} uper <5228> {IN BEHALF} tou <3588> {OF} onomatoV <3686> autou <846> {HIS NAME,}

 

[inhimitrust]

dupe post.

 

[TSIBHOD]

I can't very well tell you which bibles in other languages are proper translations other than to say those translated from the texus receptus. Even if I found out what they were, I doubt I could even pronounce their title. I'm not suggesting that people have to learn English, but rather that English speaking people should use the Word of God in English as opposed to a version that's paraphrased or tranliterated from corrupt manuscripts.

KJV
​

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NASB
​

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

NIV
​

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

That is one verse. Those who made the NIV and NASB would argue that that verse was expanded in the TR in order to assimilate it with this verse:

In Him we have redemption through His blood, forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.

So the NASB has that point anyway. It just doesn't have it in both places, because the NASB's scholars believe that it was added in the verse you mentioned, not that they are subtracting it. Either belief can be held reasonably, but you should not be so quick to condemn those who hold a different view than your own of examining manuscripts -- for such people are actually a vast majority.

TwinCrier, I see in my life people who have gotten saved without the KJV. They have even matured in their Christian walk without the KJV, and they bear good fruit for Jesus.

I also see people who do the same who use the KJV.

So, I would ask you, is it really making a big difference? I can tell you that it is not, from experience.

 

[inhimitrust]

That is one verse. Those who made the NIV and NASB would argue that that verse was expanded in the TR in order to assimilate it with this verse:

In Him we have redemption through His blood, forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.

So the NASB has that point anyway. It just doesn't have it in both places, because the NASB's scholars believe that it was added in the verse you mentioned, not that they are subtracting it. Either belief can be held reasonably, but you should not be so quick to condemn those who hold a different view than your own of examining manuscripts -- for such people are actually a vast majority.

TwinCrier, I see in my life people who have gotten saved without the KJV. They have even matured in their Christian walk without the KJV, and they bear good fruit for Jesus.

I also see people who do the same who use the KJV.

So, I would ask you, is it really making a big difference? I can tell you that it is not, from experience.

Good post. By the way, why did you refer to me on that statement in your post? I was saved without a bible, (thru the grace of God), but once saved I picked up the first one I came across in my house, an NIV from my daughter. I must have read it thru in less than 2 months and I loved it and still read it. I don't read it for salvation, but for more knowledge of God. I also read Oswald Chambers' book called "My Utmost For His Highest" for deeper reading on descipleship in Christ. Right now, I am looking for a more literal word for word, and Young's is pretty good and I notice more scholars are getting back to the real word for word literal translation that really bring more depth to the words of God. I myself am trying to learn the greek structure and the manuscripts so I can translate Paul's letters, the book of Hebrews and John's Gospel mainly, which I read slowly and digest every word. I also read Job often, great book.

 

[inhimitrust]

For example, I use the Companion Bible, which utilizes the KJV. It provides a companion column for correcting errors, pointing out Hebrew idioms, Massoratic note...etc.

(Psa 29:6) He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.​

Do you know what a unicorn is? It's a horse with a candle growing out of its head!

The word in the Hebrew is re'em and it means a wild bull. The KJV is not perfect.

What about the NIV? Perfect?

(Mark 13:17) How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!​

"Women" and "mothers" is nowhere in the Manuscripts!

Of course, this begs the question, "Well, who else besides women can give birth?" And I'm so glad you asked...

(Jer 30:6a) "Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child?..."​

Can men give birth to babies?

(Jer 30:6b) "...wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?


(Jer 30:7) Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.
​

so that none is like it: Cp. Matt. 24:21.

Christ is coming for a virgin (2 Cor. 11:1-3). But if He returns and finds His "virgin" giving suck to a child, what does that mean? She has been unfaithful, married the false husband (Cp. Rev. 18:7), and is nursing his beast system. Woe to you who do that. (Cp. Luke 23:28-30 and Rev. 6:16).

The NIV translation completely takes away from the meaning of the passage. Imperfection through additions.

Don't forget about abraham "having a child" from his own "body". We know Ishmael was born with union thru Hagar, but Isaac was born of the spirit (it didn't show Abram laying with Sarah).
We know the writers of the new testament weren't at the birth of Jesus (at least I assume this), so according to what God said to Abraham, a child would come from his own "body". I have been studying Genesis, and especially Abraham and this appears to prophetic for Jesus coming, so in essence Mary wasn't the physical "mother" of Jesus. Jacob and Esau both were of the same "seed" and born of the spirit.
It was interesting looking at this and the spirituality of it.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
NKJV genesis 15:4 And behold, the word of the LORD [came] to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
(Young) Genesis 15:4 And lo, the word of Jehovah [is] unto him, saying, `This [one] doth not heir thee; but he who cometh out from thy bowels, he doth heir thee;'

 

[christian-only]

You can't be saved without a Bible, seeing as how modern evangelism seems to always conveniently leave off baptism which is essential to salvation. You've got to have a Bible to pick that up.

 

[christian-only]

Don't forget about abraham "having a child" from his own "body". We know Ishmael was born with union thru Hagar, but Isaac was born of the spirit (it didn't show Abram laying with Sarah).

God said in Gen 15:4 "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." Did he mean that Ishamel was not born of Abraham's bowels? Yes. How so? In the sense that Abraham and Sarah were ONE FLESH, but Abraham and Hagar were not so. Hence, Sarah's womb would be Abraham's bowels, whereas Hagar's would not be. Isaac was certainly not born without a physical father or "born of the spirit." That's utterly ridiculous.

 

[ClementofRome]

You can't be saved without a Bible, seeing as how modern evangelism seems to always conveniently leave off baptism which is essential to salvation. You've got to have a Bible to pick that up.

Then, I guess that no person was saved until a church council put a "bible" together decades, if not centuries after Christ. Good grief.

christian-only, I have really followed many of your studied comments earlier and have taken many of your comments concerning the various textual traditions to mind, but the above just takes the cake..... As for baptism=salvation, I have nothing further to say, because you have just played your hand.

Blessings to you.

 

[filosofer]

It is the Gospel (what Jesus Christ has done and will do for the salvation of people) that saves, not matter what form God uses, whether proclaimed, written, or visible as in Baptism. The written Scripture is provided as the source, but the proclaimed Word preceded the written Word (in both eras of the Old and New Testaments)

 

[Knight]

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

This does not answer my question. How do you know that the KJV is inerrant? You have provided no standard whereby it is to be judged.

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

This assumes that the KJV is to be the standard by which all others must be compared. Your argument is circular.

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

I speak American.
I absolutely think that people should have the Bible available in their native language. I am not the one claiming that there is only one valid translation.

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.

No, I am not bothered by what you believe. I am bothered by what you are teaching. That the KJV is the only Bible English speaking people should be reading. A claim that is not supported by evedince.

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

Not true. God has promised to preserve His word. There is nothing in Scripture that says His word is only preserved in a 17th Century English translation.

Well, since my mark of measure that God has preserved His word is the bible and you believe the bible is fallible,

Not true.

it would be circular reasoning. However, there are volumes of books on the subject if you are truly interested in learning.

I've seen them. They use the same kind of circular reasoning that you are using here.

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.

I could ask you to do the same thing.

 

[TwinCrier]

Alright then. If you believe there is a better English translation than the KJV, by all means use it. If you feel there is no inerrant translation at all, then the point is moot. If you speak a different language, then please find God's word in your language.

When you don't beleive God can preserve His written word, it makes it so easy to dismiss any part that convicts youof sin. Just ask Virginia Mollenkott.

 

[Knight]

Alright then. If you believe there is a better English translation than the KJV, by all means use it.

Ok.

When you don't beleive God can preserve His written word, it makes it so easy to dismiss any part that convicts youof sin. Just ask Virginia Mollenkott.

Not once have I said that God cannot preserve His written word. In fact, I've said the opposite. It is the KJV-O camp that is claiming that God's word is only found in one place.

 

[inhimitrust]

God said in Gen 15:4 "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." Did he mean that Ishamel was not born of Abraham's bowels? Yes. How so? In the sense that Abraham and Sarah were ONE FLESH, but Abraham and Hagar were not so. Hence, Sarah's womb would be Abraham's bowels, whereas Hagar's would not be. Isaac was certainly not born without a physical father or "born of the spirit." That's utterly ridiculous.

Whether it sounds ridiculous or not, it is what it appears to be saying elsewhere. How do you explain what Paul says here? And God said his "heir", not "seed", though the "seed" would be reckoned thru Isaac, who had "twins"(a different topic though). Most of the bible if devinely figurative and symbolic and why the bible is so fascinating to me, as I just come across certain things like this. It is just for study, not to be arguementative or to be "ridiculous"(I hope that is not what you were calling me) . (I just realized this post is on bible versions, so I will take this to the appropriate place after this, sorry about that).
Galation 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

 

[TwinCrier]

Not once have I said that God cannot preserve His written word. In fact, I've said the opposite. It is the KJV-O camp that is claiming that God's word is only found in one place.

Now that's just silly. There are millions of copies of the KJV, not just one.