The Most Accurate Bible?

[TorturedSoul]

I have read the Bible in many translations and commentaries because being raised Baptist we were told that the King James Version was the only true Bible. I later learned that words were later added to the Bible like King James' s Greyhound in Proverbs and words were left out like Azazel in Leviticus. I have read the Torah/Chumash from the original Hebrew text and the original Greek New Testament but have found no consistency with even the Greek Orthodox Church. I favor the New American Bible, not because it is Catholic but because it has The Book of Sirach and many footnotes. I'm just wondering what other people have found to be the most accurate and the Church it is used in.

 

[drich0150]

I have read the Bible in many translations and commentaries because being raised Baptist we were told that the King James Version was the only true Bible. I later learned that words were later added to the Bible like King James' s Greyhound in Proverbs and words were left out like Azazel in Leviticus. I have read the Torah/Chumash from the original Hebrew text and the original Greek New Testament but have found no consistency with even the Greek Orthodox Church. I favor the New American Bible, not because it is Catholic but because it has The Book of Sirach and many footnotes. I'm just wondering what other people have found to be the most accurate and the Church it is used in.

Despite which translation you have they all (to my knowledge) have the parable of the Talents in them. It is the one about the Master going on a long trip and leaves his lsaves each with a portion of money (talents). Upon his return He asks to see what they did with what they were given. the first two doubled what they had and the last burried what he was given. The Master rebuked then cast out the servant who did nothing with what he was given.

The point?

Start with a bible you can use understand and work with. What is the point of having a bible that you have a hard time reading/comperhending. The most accurate bibles are the greek codexs we translate from. But because none of us Activly speak koine Greek as out primary language we turn to a given translation. Are some translations more accurate than others? Absolutly. Is biblical critical to establish and maintain a Relationship with God? if it were I can think of 1600 years worth of 'Christians' doomed to Hell because they did not have an accurate translation. So what is their saving Grace? God is only going to hold us responsiable to what we have been given. If God gave you 5 talents worth of understanding (which means you can read and write Koine greek, better than people in Jesus' day, then it is to that standard you will be judged. How ever if you have only been given 1 talent (To read and write in modern english) then it would seem to me to be pretty obvious that you should be looking at a modern english translation.
Biblegateway.com has just about every translation imaginable. Try the easy to read version.

Because the last thing you want to do is to get bogged down in some bible that is very hard and a very dry read. Because what will happen is that you will take the one talent that you have and bury it. It is better to establish your relationship with something you can read and understand, then move on to something a little more 'dry' if and when God 'doubles your talents.'

 

[graceandpeace]

The KJV is a product of Anglicanism, & Anglicanism does not hold to the idea that only the KJV is "valid" or "accurate." Further, the original KJV does include the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books.

That said, I don't think there is such a thing as a "perfect" translation, but I think some are better than others. My preference is the NRSV with apocrypha, used in many Episcopal churches, as well as some other mainline bodies. I think it is generally easy to read & serves as a good scholarly option.

 

[aiki]

I have read the Bible in many translations and commentaries because being raised Baptist we were told that the King James Version was the only true Bible.

Well, it is a marvelous translation, but it is not the only one that is. Because of its highly poetic prose, I use the KJV for memorization.

I later learned that words were later added to the Bible like King James' s Greyhound in Proverbs and words were left out like Azazel in Leviticus.

There has been a lot of finger pointing among those who have made their favorite Bible translation the hill they want to die on. Generally, I am not strongly disposed to any one particular translation. However, I would steer well clear of the more modern versions of the NIV. And I would not give apocryphal texts much of your attention, either. They are interesting as far they go, but add nothing constructive to the established canon of Scripture and espouse certain teachings that are quite contrary to it.

Your best bet would be, I think, to work from three different translations (I use the NKJV, RSV, YLT and NASB) a Greek and Hebrew interlinear Bible, an expository dictionary or two, and some well-established and respected Bible commentaries.

I use all of these and other Bible study tools besides. And I'm a Baptist.

Selah.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have read the Bible in many translations and commentaries because being raised Baptist we were told that the King James Version was the only true Bible. I later learned that words were later added to the Bible like King James' s Greyhound in Proverbs and words were left out like Azazel in Leviticus. I have read the Torah/Chumash from the original Hebrew text and the original Greek New Testament but have found no consistency with even the Greek Orthodox Church. I favor the New American Bible, not because it is Catholic but because it has The Book of Sirach and many footnotes. I'm just wondering what other people have found to be the most accurate and the Church it is used in.

At the end of the day there is no perfect Bible. That may bother some, but it's the truth.

For one all translation (not just biblical translation, all translation) is interpretation. Sometimes it's easy to translate a word, the Latin cattus means cat. But very often translation is an art of approximation. So what one finds in an English translation is, of course, generally going to be what the translator/translation committee believed to be the correct understanding of the word or phrase. And translators can be wrong.

Additionally translators work with critical texts. The translators of the KJV for the New Testament relied on seven critical editions of the Greek New Testament, five editions of Erasmus, the Stephanos, and the Beza. Each of these was a critical edition of a text resulting from looking at numerous manuscripts and making educated decisions on which readings were more accurate; and later after the KJV was published the critical readings which the KJV translators used were put back into a single Greek form, known as the Textus Receptus. And since then we have found a lot more manuscripts, and have produced further critical Greek texts, such as the Westcott-Hort and the Nestle-Aland.

So if the goal is to have an absolutely perfect, no-doubt-about-it, Bible of Bibles; well such a thing simply doesn't exist. Despite the protests of the KJV-only crowd.

But what we do have is a lot of very fantastic translations of Holy Scripture, and which is better than another is both a matter of critical scholarship and where you sit in that area, and also often a matter of preference. Some people really like how easy the NIV reads for example, personally I'm not a fan.

When we start talking about the Deuterocanonical books (e.g. Sirach, Tobit, or 1 Maccabees) we're coming to a rather different subject altogether. We're getting into a five hundred year old debate over the place and importance of the Deuterocanonical books that's been going on since Martin Luther shifted them into a separate appendix in his German translation of the Bible, a tradition which other Protestant Bible translators and publishers would do for the next three hundred plus years, including the King James Version, up until about the 1870s when (at least American) Bible publishers stopped publishing Bibles with the Deuterocanonicals at all.

Whether or not the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture depends largely on who you ask, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will say emphatically yes, Protestants will say emphatically no. Well most Protestants anyway, some of us (or at least myself) would be a bit more on the fence.

But that's part of the much longer story of the Biblical Canon, which is certainly a fantastic history in its own right (as long as you stick to the actual history and don't get derailed by a lot of modern mythology about the Bible).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

I'm just wondering what other people have found to be the most accurate and the Church it is used in.

I also read the Greek New Testament. Comparing to that, I find the ESV and the 1984 version of the NIV the most accurate. The HCSB is also very good.

Those three versions are used in a large number of evangelical churches of various kinds.

Personally, I can live without the Book of Sirach. I don't believe it's Scripture.

 

[DISRAELI]

I use the RSV myself (though I've heard the NIV nicknamed as the "Nearly Infallible Version"!).
More modern translations than the AV are probably a good idea, for better understanding.
But I would be wary of translators who go in for a lot of paraphrase. They've got good intentions, because they want modern people to grasp the text more easily. The problem is that if the translator replaces the original wording with a paraphrase, when he himself has missed the point of some phrase or metaphor, then he has also removed from the reader the option of working out the metaphor for himself. My favourite example of this is the declaration in 2 Peter ch2 v5 that Noah was saved as an "eighth man"; that word "eighth" has great symbolic significance in New Testament and early Christian thought (Jesus was raised from the dead on the eighth day of creation, the day following the seventh, and the Beast of Revelation imitates Christ by being an "eighth" himself). However, modern translations conceal all that from the modern reader by replacing it with the meaningless "saved along with seven others".
Also I steer clear of any translation which claims in John ch1 v5 that the darkness "has not understood the light". That's one way of paraphrasing "comprehendeth it not", but the real thought is that the light cannot be "swallowed up".

 

[TorturedSoul]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I agree with not choosing a paraphrased translations. The first thing I look for in a word for word translation is Azazel in Leviticus, which is omitted from most. I also look for the tetragrammaton YHWH which is the abbreviation for God that is mistral slated into Yahweh or Jehovah when it is actually just spoken Yah or Hebrew and sang in the Psalms.

 

[Radagast]

Also I steer clear of any translation which claims in John ch1 v5 that the darkness "has not understood the light". That's one way of paraphrasing "comprehendeth it not", but the real thought is that the light cannot be "swallowed up".

That's not a paraphrasing issue -- it's a debate about what the Greek verb actually means. The ESV and NIV have "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it," which I think is correct.

 

[Radagast]

I also look for the tetragrammaton YHWH which is the abbreviation for God that is mistral slated into Yahweh or Jehovah when it is actually just spoken Yah or Hebrew and sang in the Psalms.

That's not quite correct, actually. Nobody is quite sure how YHWH should be pronounced -- largely because later Jews took great care not to say the name. Yahweh and Jehovah are two ways of adding vowels to the original 4 consonants. Many translations copy the reverent Jewish attitude by translating YHWH as LORD in all caps.

 

[TorturedSoul]

It's not supposed to be pronounced anymore than the YMCA is suppose to be pronounced. Each letter represents the 4 elements and the 4 sides of God's throne. The names for God depending on the reference are Adonai, Elohim, ect.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Eh, any translation you like is ok period. Every translation I've ever read gets the point across in every way. I use NASB personally as it's the most literal translation besides the Greek itself, however the message (being the most figurative) is also good as it gives a modern view. Kjv and nkjv are the ones right in the middle. I've never read a bible that is bad, only some that are better for in depth study and others that are better to do light study.

 

[Radagast]

It's not supposed to be pronounced anymore than the YMCA is suppose to be pronounced.

Well, it was once pronounced. It's God's covenant name. See here.

Each letter represents the 4 elements and the 4 sides of God's throne.

I must say, I've never run into that idea before. It sounds Cabbalistic.

The names for God depending on the reference are Adonai, Elohim, ect.

Those are titles rather than names. See e.g. here for Adonai.

 

[Klesk]

A lot of it comes down to what you want if for. As mentioned previously, the NASB is great because of how close it is to a word-by-word translation. If I'm studying from the Greek, I use the NASB. ESV is also great because of it's accuracy; I would also say that it's easier to read because it's a little more dynamic than the NASB. I tend to prefer these two. However, NKJV is great, as is the HCSB and there is nothing wrong with the NIV either. It really just comes down to what you want it for.

 

[Progguy]

different bibles suit different people and different purposes. like you i am blessed by the fact i can read it in the original languages (though my aramaic is pretty useless) but there is no 'most accurate bible'! just read and enjoy.

 

[Unix]

I barely ever notice if my Bibles come with notes. From my signature You can see a couple of points about English Bible versions.
See also: 1. The Catholic and Anglican...
the versions. (+follow link!)
I'n addition to that I'm going to make a User Bible in Accordance with the Psalter compared between the new 2014 NICOT volume and the 2010 NABRE.

As You can see, how much I use different versions depends on what part of the Bible I'm currently looking at. I sometimes use the NIV11 for comparison just because new tools keep coming out for it (such as the 2015 New Interpreter's Bible Commentary (10 vols.)), but I haven't got it in the software where I have most of my books (which is not the very best software).

I'm not trying to get all possible tools and books, many times I start my evaluation of what to get based on what English Bible versions are used:

I favor the New American Bible, not because it is Catholic but because it has The Book of Sirach and many footnotes. I'm just wondering what other people have found to be the most accurate and the Church it is used in.

 

[TPeterY]

I use many different translations regularly with these three tools.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4%3A29&version=NKJV

Revelation 3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Matthew 24 Parallel Chapters

But of all the translations, my two favorite translations are the New King James version and the Easy-to-Read version.

The best translations to use are the ones that'll help you understand the bible most, not the one that sells the most copies or the most popular version.

Look at the link below and you can see how much of a difference the right translation can make in helping you to understand and catch things you've never noticed reading the old King James.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%206&version=KJV;ERV



.