Which Bible is the best?

[FallenDaughter]

I have been to several churhes through the years and have been told that x=version of the bible is the most litteral translation of the bible for a, b, abd c reasons. and every church had great reasons, but they all left me wondering which version of the bible was really the best.

 

[TruthMiner]

I have been to several churhes through the years and have been told that x=version of the bible is the most litteral translation of the bible for a, b, abd c reasons. and every church had great reasons, but they all left me wondering which version of the bible was really the best.

ALL of them have deficiencies. There are 3 good things you can do:

1. Get a copy of several translations: KJV, NASB, NAB, RSV, etc. Compare them when you study the bible.

2. You can buy New Testaments that have 4 translations side by side.

3. Buy and Interlinear. You don't need to know Greek to use one and it helps you understand what is what and what the Greek really says. With the 2 options above, you are always guessing or presuming.

The last is the best option.


The worst thing you can do is rely on an NIV translation. It is horrible for Bible study. Use it for no more than light reading.

 

[icxn]

... which version of the bible is really the best?

The one you put to practice.

 

[Inviolable]

I have been to several churhes through the years and have been told that x=version of the bible is the most litteral translation of the bible for a, b, abd c reasons. and every church had great reasons, but they all left me wondering which version of the bible was really the best.

I would say the most accurate bible is the New International Version or the NIV.

The King James Version was translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint and text that was believed to be the New Testament.

The Septuagint is the bible the Romens had the Hebrew and Jewish scholars of the time translate from Hebrew and Jewish into Greek for them.

The Vulgate is translated into Latin from the Septuagint.

The King James Version is translated form the Vulgate.

The NIV is translated from all serviving text including the dead sea scrolls and text predating the Septuagint, all the text is taken from Hebrew and Jewish text.

 

[TruthMiner]

I would say the most accurate bible is the New International Version or the NIV.

the NIV is horrible. Example: the Greek word for flesh is sarx. the concept of FLESH is very important to understanding the New Testament. Look how they translate the one word sarx:

flesh
body
sinful nature
human nature
world

That is just one example of many of their extreme biases.

The King James Version was translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint and text that was believed to be the New Testament.

that is incorrect. It was NOT translated from the Vulgate.

 

[tel0004]

You are going to get 10 different answers on this. Noboby here is that fluent in greek and aramaic and other languages they were written in, so they really cant give a qualified answer. I am KJO, in the sense that the King James verson is the only version for me, but other people differ, and I dont know enough to say otherwise.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I use the Strong`s concordence so I have the King James bible because that is the one the words line up with.
Then I have a New Revised Standard Version because it`s the least sexist.
Then I have a paraphrase for easy reading.

 

[Melethiel]

ESV

 

[hoser]

I would say the most accurate bible is the New International Version or the NIV.

The King James Version was translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint and text that was believed to be the New Testament.

The Septuagint is the bible the Romens had the Hebrew and Jewish scholars of the time translate from Hebrew and Jewish into Greek for them.

The Vulgate is translated into Latin from the Septuagint.

The King James Version is translated form the Vulgate.

The NIV is translated from all serviving text including the dead sea scrolls and text predating the Septuagint, all the text is taken from Hebrew and Jewish text.

The NIV maybe the most popular, but it is certainly NOT the best. There are many websites that you can go to see how the NIV is really a bad version of scripture.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
http://members.aol.com/twarren11/niv.html

Personally, even though it is a Catholic Bible, the RSV-CE second edition is my favorite. Note that the RSV is orignially a protestant Bible, but by permission Catholics were able to improve on its text.

 

[kopilo]

The one which has been "modernised" the least.

 

[revduane]

I use several versions as to help others new in Jesus to understand better.

For personal use, I use the Amplified, and KJV. Rev.

 

[oldsage]

I have been to several churhes through the years and have been told that x=version of the bible is the most litteral translation of the bible for a, b, abd c reasons. and every church had great reasons, but they all left me wondering which version of the bible was really the best.

I would say use what is comfortable for you. My preferences are as followed:

Literal : ESV, NASB, NRSV
Readable: NIV, ESV
Study: ESV, NASB, NET, NRSV

Currently my favorite version is the ESV.

Also, literal isn't always best, because what something literally says doesn't always convey what it means in our language. Such as if I use the phrase "It is raining cats and dogs" if you don't know what a cat or dog is, this makes no sense, or if you never have heard the expression before you think cats and dogs are falling from the sky. For those saying "It is raining very hard" may make better sense of the phrase.

I say find one you think you enjoy reading and read through that, when you finished, see about getting another version and read that and so on.

Blessings,
Chris

 

[Inviolable]

The NIV maybe the most popular, but it is certainly NOT the best. There are many websites that you can go to see how the NIV is really a bad version of scripture.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
http://members.aol.com/twarren11/niv.html

Personally, even though it is a Catholic Bible, the RSV-CE second edition is my favorite. Note that the RSV is orignially a protestant Bible, but by permission Catholics were able to improve on its text.

Hey I have links as well!

They say what I said about the NIV.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/15.php

http://www.ibs.org/aboutibs/index.php

Its funny how all the Catholics say they dont like it because it wasnt translated correctly and then point out how accurate the Catholic bible is.
Because no Catholic had a part in the translation of the NIV.
However.

Over 20 different denominations took part in the translation.
All Protestants.
Over 100 scholars helped in the translation and 6 countries.

The NIV is the first bible to be translated from sources other then Catholic sinse the 6th century.

From the Vulgate to the King James version there has only been 3 bibles not translated entirely by Catholics.
Thats saying quite a bit.

I'm not saying I have anything against Catholics. I know it entirely seems that way. But I am not pointing out personal beliefes. I am pointing out facts.

 

[oldsage]

the NIV is horrible. Example: the Greek word for flesh is sarx. the concept of FLESH is very important to understanding the New Testament. Look how they translate the one word sarx:

flesh
body
sinful nature
human nature
world

That is just one example of many of their extreme biases.

um, sarx can mean all those things

Blessings,
Chris

 

[TruthMiner]

um, sarx can mean all those things

Blessings,
Chris

Um no.

It does not mean all those things. Please explain how flesh means "world." And there is no such thing as a "sinful nature" in the Bible. That is a Reformed theological term.

I don't need any translators to do me a favor and stick their denominational bias into a translation. It is disturbing that men would do such a thing.

They could have just put in the word "flesh" and there is no reason they couldn't have done that. But no, they wanted to flaunt their creedal beliefs and think they are doing God a favor.

 

[Inviolable]

Um no.

It does not mean all those things. Please explain how flesh means "world." And there is no such thing as a "sinful nature" in the Bible. That is a Reformed theological term.

I don't need any translators to do me a favor and stick their denominational bias into a translation. It is disturbing that men would do such a thing.

They could have just put in the word "flesh" and there is no reason they couldn't have done that. But no, they wanted to flaunt their creedal beliefs and think they are doing God a favor.

Umm, yeah.

I dont need any Catholics to do me a favor and use the translation the Pope agrees on and then think they are doing God a favor.

I am sure however that all 20 denominations that translated the NIV were flaunting their ability to translate Hebrew and Jewish text.
Also the 100 different people decided to get together and hold a flaunt or no flaunt conference.
The cost of travel was well worth having 100 people flown from the 6 different countries it was translated from to discuss their flauntieness.

 

[oldsage]

Um no.

It does not mean all those things. Please explain how flesh means "world." And there is no such thing as a "sinful nature" in the Bible. That is a Reformed theological term.

I don't need any translators to do me a favor and stick their denominational bias into a translation. It is disturbing that men would do such a thing.

They could have just put in the word "flesh" and there is no reason they couldn't have done that. But no, they wanted to flaunt their creedal beliefs and think they are doing God a favor.

Because langauge has changed so can terms we use in the bible, if the idea of a 'sinful nature' is believed to be taught by the bible and the translators put is in there reflecting what they believe the passage is saying, so be it. Every translation you read is laced with translational bias' There isn't any getting around that.

For example in Col 2:17 it has this in these translations:
ESV Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

NET Colossians 2:17 these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!

KJV Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
and I disagree with each of these translations. My translation would read:
ME Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of things to come, but let the body of Christ.

the KJV adds a verb there and others to me distort the meaning of the passage by putting 'reality' or 'substance', instead of 'body'

This is the only place where the translators stray from how they translated the same phrase in other parts of the bible.

Now with that said, they are still correct in their translation, it can mean the things they say it does, I just disagree with them because of my theology as opposed to theirs, and this will happen in all translations.

Now, I would have to see where the NIV translates 'sarx' as world in their text to see why they did it. I didn't see it translated as that in the text when I did a quick scan of it. My guess without reading the text is because it may mean 'people' of the world, not the 'earth'

Chris

 

[TruthMiner]

Because langauge has changed so can terms we use in the bible, if the idea of a 'sinful nature' is believed to be taught by the bible and the translators put is in there reflecting what they believe the passage is saying, so be it. Every translation you read is laced with translational bias' There isn't any getting around that.

For example in Col 2:17 it has this in these translations:
ESV Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

NET Colossians 2:17 these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!

KJV Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
and I disagree with each of these translations. My translation would read:
ME Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of things to come, but let the body of Christ.

the KJV adds a verb there and others to me distort the meaning of the passage by putting 'reality' or 'substance', instead of 'body'

This is the only place where the translators stray from how they translated the same phrase in other parts of the bible.

Now with that said, they are still correct in their translation, it can mean the things they say it does, I just disagree with them because of my theology as opposed to theirs, and this will happen in all translations.

Now, I would have to see where the NIV translates 'sarx' as world in their text to see why they did it. I didn't see it translated as that in the text when I did a quick scan of it. My guess without reading the text is because it may mean 'people' of the world, not the 'earth'

Chris

And they couldn't just translate it as "flesh" why? After all "flesh" is the equivalent English word to the Greek sarx.

 

[oldsage]

And they couldn't just translate it as "flesh" why? After all "flesh" is the equivalent English word to the Greek sarx.

That is the problem, it may be 'equivalent' with many English words.
'sarx' falls under these Semantic Domains:

• Body, Body Parts, and Body Products
• People
• Kinship Terms
• Physiological Processes and States
• Psychological Faculties
• Nature, Class, Example

so to say it just means 'flesh' is incorrect.

Chris

 

[TruthMiner]

That is the problem, it may be 'equivalent' with many English words.
'sarx' falls under these Semantic Domains:

• Body, Body Parts, and Body Products
• People
• Kinship Terms
• Physiological Processes and States
• Psychological Faculties
• Nature, Class, Example

so to say it just means 'flesh' is incorrect.

Chris

Only in your theological preconception.

And that is the problem.