Most Accurate Bible Translation

[Papa01]

What, in your opinion, is the most accurate Bible translation, and the one you use?

I use the NKJV for it's accuracy.

 

[random person]

KJV, for its doctrinally rigidness, such as Matthew 1:25 it says Jesus was the firstborn of Mary.

And also, Revelation 20:4 which I believe took place in Heaven not on Earth (Ecc. 12:7; Luke 8:55; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21,23). Every other translation has a huge premill bent to them. (Well besides the ASV and NKJV too).

 

[FerventDisciple]

I use the NKJV primarily but also reference the KJV, NASB and ESV. Many evangelical scholars agree that the NASB is the most accurate. The NKJV and NASB are very similar, the main difference being the new testament Greek texts behind them. Most scholars believe the Nestle Aland Critical Text is the best so the NKJV is mostly overlooked. I don't believe we can say for sure which text is the best so it's wise to make use of both. As I said I use the NKJV primarily, if I couldn't have that I'd go with the NASB and if I couldn't have that I'd go with the ESV.

 

[Papa01]

I use the NKJV as my Primary Bible, but I also use the HCSB to compare with it, since the NKJV is TR and the HCSB is CT. Makes a nice combination.

Sorry, should have noted that in the OP.

Rob

 

[childofdust]

What, in your opinion, is the most accurate Bible translation, and the one you use?

I can't speak for the NT because I'm an OT guy. So my opinion is based around my work with the Hebrew language and the Old Testament.

For some reason, when people translate the bible, they are focused almost entirely on the New Testament. The New Testament is always of primary concern. It is pretty much the only text quoted from on translation websites. And the only text from which web sites that review translations take examples.

The Old Testament is usually translated after the New Testament, and usually receives less than half the attention given to the New Testament. Oftentimes--or I should say, almost always--the Old Testament isn't actually translated, it is revised based on some older translation. And when translators run across a problem in the Hebrew, they usually do one of two things: 1. follow the interpretation of previous English translations and just pretend like the previous translation got it right, or 2. follow the Greek Septuagint. For these reasons, there are very few translations of the OT that are very accurate.

It is only within the past 40 years that biblical scholarship and, thus, translators, have begun learning from and embracing modern literary study. They have started asking questions like "what is Hebrew poetry?" or "how does it function to communicate?" Or "what is Hebrew narrative?" and "how does it function to communicate?" There have been dramatic advancements in linguistic, syntactic, and literary studies since the late 20th century that are now being utilized to translate the Old Testament. And as such, newer translations are emerging that are becoming more and more accurate.

One of these--my own translation--when finished, will be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament in existence. Until then, you have limited options. The NRSV is one of the better ones. However, it does sometimes go to the Septuagint when it has a problem with the Hebrew. And its nature as a revision oftentimes gets in the way of a truly new and accurate rendering of a verse. The NASB or HCSB can sometimes compliment it by giving a more accurate word here or there. They are close seconds to the NRSV. The Stone Edition Tanakh and New Jerusalem Society Publication Tanach are both excellent. Sometimes they tower over the NRSV in terms of their accuracy. Sometimes they merely follow behind. So it's a mixed case with those. If you use an NRSV alongside an NJPS Tanakh, you will rarely go wrong. The best of the best--the most accurate translations you will find, come from Robert Alter. He has not yet translated the entire OT, but he is getting there. He has published the psalms, the wisdom books, the Torah, and Joshua through Kings. Look him up on Amazon.

 

[Unix]

childofdust, what do You think of the Common English Bible (CEB) Old Testament? I don't have it but I bought it for my linguistically talented friend who knows many languages, she didn't want a formal equivalent version. Its biggest weakness is some of the gender-neutral language. Do You think it will be a good choice for her? There aren't many recent Old Testament versions to choose from and I avoid the ones without the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[mark kennedy]

I always start with the KJV because it's tied to the Strong's referencing system and so are a lot of Concordances, Dictionaries and Lexicons. Don't get me wrong, I love the NIV, it's a big help with some of the more awkward passages of the Old Testament. To my knowledge the Texus Recepticus (TR) manuscripts are being deprecated through the so called 'higher criticism' so no one wants to use it.

What I really like about TR and the KJV is that you will get more not less. From there you can look into the textual variation and invariably you will find there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the manuscripts.

Oh and by the way, the NKJV has been my primary study Bible for years, the footnotes on the textual variation was a brilliant solution to a problem modern scholars should never have been forced to deal with. It's just hard to match the way things are translated in the KJV, I think the NKJV was vastly superior to the Revised Standard and the American Standard attempts at something similar.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Radagast]

I would say that the ESV was much more accurate than the NKJV.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would say that the ESV was much more accurate than the NKJV.

In the tradition of the Geneva Bible, yes, it's more accurate but the NKJV has better chapter titles.

 

[timur123456789]

Green's Literal Translation:
Green's Literal Translation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Young's Literal Translation :
Young's Literal Translation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dcyates]

It all depends on what you want emphasized. If you're looking for as literal a translation as possible (where the translators have tried to find as close an equivalent English word for each and every Hebrew and Greek word), one can hardly get more literal (short of an interlinear) than the NASB. In fact, they've tried to be SO literal with the NASB, that there are even instances where they've gone so far as to maintain the original Hebrew or Greek sentence syntax!?!
But if you want something that's easier to read IN English, while maintaining a high degree of accuracy, the ESV is a truly excellent translation (based as it is on the NRSV).

PS: The KJV and NKJV are fine translations, as far as they go, but simply rely on an old (i.e. as far as we're concerned, not as far as the mss themselves are concerned) and less accurate Greek manuscript tradition.

 

[Unix]

It's not based on the NRSV and offers no new scholarship beyond the RSV,in fact it's very biased unlike the RSV and NRSV:

But if you want something that's easier to read IN English, while maintaining a high degree of accuracy, the ESV is a truly excellent translation (based as it is on the NRSV).

 

[FerventDisciple]

It's not based on the NRSV and offers no new scholarship beyond the RSV,in fact it's very biased unlike the RSV and NRSV:

All translations at some point tend to have bias. ESV users would say the NRSV has an egalitarian bias.

 

[dcyates]

It's not based on the NRSV and offers no new scholarship beyond the RSV,in fact it's very biased unlike the RSV and NRSV:

My mistake; it was in fact derived from the RSV. Several Bible scholars of a more theologically conservative bent recognized both the high level and superior scholarship behind the old RSV translation, but were at the same time a bit concerned with the more liberal elements (both theological and political) of various scholars involved, and so approached the National Council of Churches and asked if they could base a new translation on it. The NCC kindly agreed and, after having gathered together over 100 translators to contribute towards it, the ESV is the happy result. (Incidentally, the RSV had gathered a relatively paltry 30 Bible scholars to act as translators, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was "no new scholarship" involved.) That being said, you are correct, in that the ESV is therefore of a more conservative bias -- if that is what you meant, of course. Nevertheless, as has already been noted, everybody has a bias. It's unavoidable.

 

[FerventDisciple]

My mistake; it was in fact derived from the RSV. Several Bible scholars of a more theologically conservative bent recognized both the high level and superior scholarship behind the old RSV translation, but were at the same time a bit concerned with the more liberal elements (both theological and political) of various scholars involved, and so approached the National Council of Churches and asked if they could base a new translation on it. The NCC kindly agreed and, after having gathered together over 100 translators to contribute towards it, the ESV is the happy result. (Incidentally, the RSV had gathered a relatively paltry 30 Bible scholars to act as translators, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was "no new scholarship" involved.) That being said, you are correct, in that the ESV is therefore of a more conservative bias -- if that is what you meant, of course. Nevertheless, as has already been noted, everybody has a bias. It's unavoidable.

Jude 1:5 is an example of new scholarship in the ESV. All major translations (except for the NET) say Lord, the ESV says Jesus.

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. Jude 1:5 (ESV)

This is inline with the latest 28th edition of the Nestle Aland text which has Jesus in Jude 1:5. The ESV update team must of been aware of this coming change as they had it in their text just before NA28 was released.

 

[abysmul]

I find the NASB my go to for study, and when I'm wanting to simply read and meditate I turn to the ESV.

 

[Unix]

Because it's not the aim of the ESV:

The NCC kindly agreed and, after having gathered together over 100 translators to contribute towards it, the ESV is the happy result. (Incidentally, the RSV had gathered a relatively paltry 30 Bible scholars to act as translators, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was "no new scholarship" involved.)

And btw, new textual basis does not count as new scholarship. I can find out about all the new textual basis very easily with the resources I have (most of them in Accordance, one in print).

 

[ImADaughterOfGod]

I only use the KJV...

 

[ebedmelech]

I think the NASB is the most accurate of any translation and then the NKJV after that.

I use them side by side in study.

On a side note...the ESV is very good too!

 

[preacher4truth]

I like and use the ESV 2011 translation. I also like and use YLT.