Which Bible Version is closest to the original Hebrew and Greek Texts?

[JohnB445]

I got saved by the KJV, and so many others.

So I stick with the KJV because it works and it worked for 400+ years.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I got saved by the KJV, and so many others.

So I stick with the KJV because it works and it worked for 400+ years.

The greatest English translation ever done, but not the only one, nor even the best one!

 

[JohnB445]

The greatest English translation ever done, but not the only one, nor even the best one!

Which one would you say is the best one?

 

[BroIgnatius]

What happens when you believe the Latin vulgate was translated from corrupted manuscripts.. and all newer versions are translated from that..

What happens is this: Are you qualified to make this conclusion? What are your credentials that would make your mere opinion outrank the Church's official teaching over the last 1600 years (long before your denomination or christian group even existed?

No answer. I thought so.

 

[BroIgnatius]

As for me, If the King James Version was good enough for Sts. Peter and Paul, it is good enough for me.

 

[hedrick]

That's why I ordered a copy of the NKJV, I wanted a Bible in contemporary English that used the TR. I'm pretty sure the NRSV I read uses the Critical Text. I was able to get a Thomas Nelson Premier Edition NKJV off of Amazon for $65, the sticker on that Bible is $149! I'm pretty excited.

EDIT: I'll add, I'm not enough of a scholar or expert to argue about which of the texts is better. I love the NRSV and am looking forward to reading the NKJV.

Oddly, while the NKJV uses the TR for the NT, it uses a recent critical text for the OT. It’s also a bit unfair to Erasmus not to call the TR a critical text. It’s just an old one.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Which one would you say is the best one?

Depends on which Greek textual source one prefers, but would say that the best versions to use for studying Bible would be formal ones such as the Nas and the Nkjv!

 

[YeshuaFan]

As for me, If the King James Version was good enough for Sts. Peter and Paul, it is good enough for me.

Actually , they would been using the LLX and Hebrew texts!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Oddly, while the NKJV uses the TR for the NT, it uses a recent critical text for the OT. It’s also a bit unfair to Erasmus not to call the TR a critical text. It’s just an old one.

I though that the Nkjv used the standard Hebrew text?

 

[hedrick]

I though that the Nkjv used the standard Hebrew text?

It does. That was my point. It rejects current scholarship for the NT and accepts it for the OT. Seems odd.

 

[YeshuaFan]

It does. That was my point. It rejects current scholarship for the NT and accepts it for the OT. Seems odd.

There are not that many OT Hebrew texts for use though. are there?

 

[hedrick]

There are not that many OT Hebrew texts for use though. are there?

They could have used the same Hebrew that the KJV used. It seems to have been a published text, though the translators sometimes departed from it. I don't know how significant the difference is.

According to Wikipedia, the departures are often to make the OT conform the Christian tradition, at times by using readings from the LXX. They cite Ps 22:16. KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV all use the LXX, because it can be understood as a Christian prophesy. NRSV and NET Bible translate the Hebrew, as is typical of those translations. NET is kind of interesting. It was done by conservative Christians, but it seems to avoid departing from the Hebrew to give Christian readings in the OT.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Actually , they would been using the LLX and Hebrew texts!

I know, it is a joke about how some people think the KJV is the only valid version. The version of the Old Testament that Jesus read was the Septuagint (this is the version of the Old Testament used by Catholics). If that version of the Old Testament was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.

 

[hedrick]

I know, it is a joke about how some people think the KJV is the only valid version. The version of the Old Testament that Jesus read was the Septuagint (this is the version of the Old Testament used by Catholics). If that version of the Old Testament was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.

Huh? To my knowledge Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. Why would he have used a Greek translation? Catholics traditionally used a Latin translation, the Vulgate, which Wikipedia says was done from the Hebrew. Furthermore, I believe Jesus was Jewish, not Catholic.

Of course quotations from Jesus in the Gospels often use the LXX. Since the Gospels are in Greek, you would expect them to use the LXX for passages from the OT.

There's some discussion whether Jesus spoke Greek or not. My feeling is that he probably did. But it's unlikely that it was his primary language.

 

[YeshuaFan]

They could have used the same Hebrew that the KJV used. It seems to have been a published text, though the translators sometimes departed from it. I don't know how significant the difference is.

According to Wikipedia, the departures are often to make the OT conform the Christian tradition, at times by using readings from the LXX. They cite Ps 22:16. KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV all use the LXX, because it can be understood as a Christian prophesy. NRSV and NET Bible translate the Hebrew, as is typical of those translations. NET is kind of interesting. It was done by conservative Christians, but it seems to avoid departing from the Hebrew to give Christian readings in the OT.

Think main text in use would be the Hebrew Masoretic one.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Huh? To my knowledge Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. Why would he have used a Greek translation? Catholics traditionally used a Latin translation, the Vulgate, which Wikipedia says was done from the Hebrew. Furthermore, I believe Jesus was Jewish, not Catholic.

Of course quotations from Jesus in the Gospels often use the LXX. Since the Gospels are in Greek, you would expect them to use the LXX for passages from the OT.

There's some discussion whether Jesus spoke Greek or not. My feeling is that he probably did. But it's unlikely that it was his primary language.

Aramiac would have been his mother tongue, and I think his point is that God can and does have other versions then just the Kjv for us to use!

 

[Dwayne Strivens]

I like the NKJV..it is closest to the KJV, which is probably the most accurate version, and doesn't require you to learn middle english. I love the KJV but I have a hard time studying it deeply

Hello. I have been reading NIVs for 32 years. So, it's always been difficult to read alternate versions of God's Word for me. But, recently, a close friend of mine, who is the COO at TBN, gave an NKJV Bible to me and said that that version was the closest to the original manuscript. Up to that point, I had only vaguely heard of that version before. But, I trust my friend and he has a lot of integrity, and is well-read in God's Word. So, I begin reading solely from the Bible he gave to me. I'm understanding so many things much better from reading it. So, I'm praising God for it. Blessings, Dwayne

 

[thomas15]

But, recently, a close friend of mine, who is the COO at TBN, gave an NKJV Bible to me and said that that version was the closest to the original manuscript.

Like many here I have a collection of Bibles. At last count it was over 100 of them. For the last decade I have studies with the 1984 edition of the NIV or the 1995 revision of the NASB. But for the last year or two I have moved to the New King James. I think it is a great translation to use but as others have said no Bible in English is perfect. Also as others have said it is not accurate to state that any English translation is closest to the original because we don't have the original and the TR while being old was an edited Greek text from various sources and was missing sections which some were back sourced into Greek from the Vulgate. Also the TR as we know it was not the precise manuscript used for the KJV.

For that matter the KJV that some are so fond of (and I have more KJV in terms of numbers than any other translation) is actually the 1769 Blayney revision. The 1611 version is in "early modern English" not middle English as stated previously. I have a reprint of the 1611 KJV, it is a difficult read. The Douay–Rheims, the only edition I have is the revised 1825 (or so) Challoner revision revision revision, which is what passes these days for the DR Translation. I have not been able to source a reasonably priced earlier edition. My point is that most that claim they read the old KJV or the old DR translation are actually reading a more modern revision.

I have several editions of the Revised Standard Version. This was the first Bible that I owned. I also have several editions of the New Revised Standard Version. I don't use either of them for study. For the NRSV I stay away from it simply because it is the translation of choice of theological liberals. The ESV is ok but it is actually a revision of the RSV. The Holman CSB is so close to the NIV that unless you like to collect Bibles makes no sense to own. Same could be said about the NLT. However with respect to the NIV I only study from the 1984 or earlier editions, I think Zondervan is trying hard to ruin a great translation by tinkering with the pronouns. The translaters notes in the NET Bible are interesting.

With any translation I think it is a good idea to read the preface from time to time and also refer and digest the text notes while studying.

 

[BlessedCreator]

The only English Bible I read and trust is the King James Bible.

 

[pescador]

The only English Bible I read and trust is the King James Bible.

Okay. Good for you. Why do you trust only this translation? It is over 400 years old; a lot has happened since 1611. There are far more ancient manuscripts today than there were then and the meaning of a lot of the KJV's words are mistranslated and mean something different to today's English-speaking people. The art and science of translation has improved a lot in four centuries and even the KJV translators acknowledged that 1) the previous translations were God's word and 2) their translation was not the definitive word of God. Try reading the translators' introduction if you don't believe me.