Which bible translation is most accurate?

Answer 1

A very disputed topic, many Baptists I know believe that the King James version is the truest form. However, there is also speculation that King James had some parts modified to benefit himself or his kingdom. I personally would go with the dead sea scrolls as the truest form. They are the oldest biblical texts remaining today, trouble is that they are somewhat incomplete, and some parts of them are still being reconstructed. Some people would say that the truest version cannot be the KJV because of the revisions made in its name, such as the New KJV, the Modern KJV, etc. A lot of people criticize the KJV for the archaic language and supposed improvements in newer versions due to more Greek Manuscripts having been discovered since 1611. Personally, I think the 'problem' with the language is overrated as one can get used to it and learn what the few archaic forms mean. By far the most important issue is not the English style at all but the Greek Text on which it is based. Although I would personally prefer a more 'modern' translation such as the NIV which I understand is fairly popular these days I would much rather know that I have in my hands the pure word of God coming from the most pure, uncorrupted manuscripts. The Greek Manuscripts upon which the KJV is based come from what is called the Byzantine Text, the Received Text (Textus Receptus) also called the Majority Text. The often advanced argument that the many additional manuscripts discovered since 1611 make the KJV Greek out of date are incorrect. The overwhelming majority of the textual evidence both before and after 1611 supports the KJV renderings. What makes for both an intriguing and alarming study are the specific differences between say the renderings of the NIV and the KJV. Here are just a few examples: In the prophecy of Micah 5 v 2 the NIV makes Christ to have an origin and thus he is a created being. 'whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.' The KJV says here 'whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting'. The NIV in Isaiah 14 v 12 changes 'Lucifer' KJV to 'Morning Star'. As Jesus is called 'the bright and morning star' in Rev 22 v16 this has a number of flow-on effects. It accuses Christ as one who 'weakens the nations'. It denies his deity by stating that he wanted to be like the most high v.14. It blasphemes him by saying that he will be 'brought down to hell' v 15 and that he has 'fallen from heaven.' v12. In six out of twelve passages the NIV denies Christ worship which it replaces with knelt or kneeling. This diminishes his deity as kneeling is just a bodily position but worship is a heart attitude. see Matthew 8 v 2, 9 v 18, 15 v 25, 18 v 26, 20 v 20, and Mark 5 v 6. There are many many more in various areas and they are not just minor changes. Ultimately the point is this. Which version is closest to the original divinely inspired word of God? Having studied a lot of the textual detail including the Greek I would have to say the KJV. Another advantage the KJV has over more modern translations are the clues given to emphasize the meaning of the text. Two of these involve the italicized words and the usage of thee and ye. Italicized words in the KJV, as well as a few other translations, indicate words that were added during translation. Some would say this violates the caution mentioned at the end of Revelation. If taken literally, that would be true. The problem is that the English text would be rendered meaningless without the extra words. Both Hebrew and Greek build into the words themselves quite a bit of information about person and number. For example, the English phrase "I am" is normally rendered as a single word in both Hebrew and Greek. In order to preserve the meaning, though, it must be rendered as two words in English. (Note that this particular phrase is rendered as two words in both Hebrew and Greek in a few select cases. This is understood to reflect back to the answer to Moses' question, "whom shall I say sent me?" God responds with "I [I am]," using the word "I" with the word "I am.") 17th century British also used "thee" and "ye" to refer to the listener or listeners, respectively. Both Hebrew and Greek retain the notion of a singular "you" - referring to one listener - and a plural "you" for multiple listeners or one or more groups. In 21st century American, though, both are properly rendered "you" (though in the southern USA, it would be rendered "y'all" :) ). The distinction can be very important when understanding certain passages. The bottom line, though, is that each translation sheds a different light on the passages while retaining some form of accuracy. Even the paraphrases, such as The Living Bible and The Message, have merit in that they can render past-day Hebrew and Greek idiomatic expressions in idioms more familiar to today's English speaker, at the risk of losing some extra meaning imparted by the phrasing itself. (On the other hand, there are many puns in The Bible that are lost outside of their original languages.) A well-versed Bible student can examine many different translations to glean fuller meaning. The advanced student can learn Hebrew and Greek, and examine one of the numerous collections of "original" texts (though all of them are too recent to be little more than copies) to get even more meaning. All that having been said, nothing enlightens the Bible more than the Holy Spirit within the student. Academic study alone won't result in as much gain as studying with the Author guiding you.

Answer

There is no single Bible version that is the most accurate because they all have their advantages and disadvantages, and people have their own personal likes and dislikes. It's a bit like "What is the best car?" : no single answer will satisfy everybody, but as a guide:-

• The most literal version of the Bible that is easily readable and in in modern language is the "New American Standard Version" BUT ensure it is the "Updated" edition.

• The most literal and accurate version of the Bible is "The Scriptures" but it is not easily readable because it transliterates terms, book names and titles, from the original Greek and Hebrew languages without translating them, and changes the traditional book order. It is accurate - very accurate - but it is not easily readable.

• The most literal and accurate version of the Bible that is easily readable is, believe it or not, the King James Version.

Reasons:

1. Second-person singular and plural: For example, in his book "Footsteps of the Messiah", the author (Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum Th.M., Ph.D) explained the reason for changes to the translation excerps used and said: "However, the archaic language (ie thee, thou, etc) has been modernized. One exception is that the archaic ye has been retained so as to be able to distinguish the second person plural from the singular you." (What he is saying is that modern language uses the same word "you" regardless of whether it is referring to a crowd or an individual.)

In summary, in the King James, to know who all the different verb and pronoun endings refer to, all you have to remember is:

The "y" is plural. The "t" is singular.

2. Archaic word endings such as "-eth", "-est" etc are straight-forward, easily understood, and automatically "updated" by the modern reader.

3. Archaic words are as above.

4. The meaning of obsolete words (ie words that are no longer used or their meaning has changed) can be very easily determined nowadays from on-line or computerized Dictionaries, some of which are King-James-specific.

5. It is not Copyrighted. (Therefore there is no perceived catering to particular firms, requirements, beliefs, sects, or $$$)

6. It is not PC, or Politically-Correct. It pulls no punches, and does not use wishy-washy language: it calls a spade a spade, not a "digging implement". Some modern translations are so concerned about PC and possibly offending people they are insipid and intestine-less.

7. The KJ translators held themselves accountable to God because they were handling the very words of God and accordingly translated them as accurately, faithfully, and truthfully as they possibly could, without fear or favour.

8. The accuracy of the KJ Bible is attested to by archaelogists and historians, even secular ones.

9. The accuracy of the KJ Bible is attested to by Christians for Prophecy.

10. The KJ has been now been in print for 400 years [first printed 1611 and the current year is 2015] so there has been plenty of time to get things sorted out.

Regardless of the above, everyone can only decide for themselves what versions they like and prefer, but I personally believe everyone should have a copy of the King James Bible, even if they are not christian and it is only used for secular reasons such as great literature.

The bottom line is that even if you have the best translation in the world it's no good if you don't read it. Any Bible is better than no Bible.

KJV without doubt is the most accurate English version

Out of all the English bibles the one which is the most accurate is the one translated directly from the Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek manuscripts, by people not associated with philosopha doctrine of dialectics, currently that is the King James Version. Bible students can obtain a one to one reference between the King James and the original texts, therefore they can acquire accurate understanding based upon what they read and what they study.

Most everything else is either a reinterpretation of the KJV (english to english) or bibles which attempt to correct the KJV, or an interpretation based upon philosopha doctrine and dialectics (worse). The real point is to understand some key points coming out the gate, no matter which version you choose.

1. You have to understand there are 3 iterations of earth and your soul existed in the first and exists now in this 2nd iteration. Evidence to this is found in 2nd Peter Ch3 and 1st Corinthians 15. Our Father never explains how old the first earth iteration was, but he does tell you who was with him when he created it (Proverbs 8:22 - "The works of Old", John 1), and details about its creation Job 38. It was not created in vain Isaiah 45:18.
2. The second important point to understand is found in Ecclesiastes 12:7 "all souls belong to our Father", Your Soul is not yours to give and Satan can't take it.

Answer 2

It depends very much on whom you listen to, as it is not an easy question to answer with great authority. The following important points, however, are provided for your consideration.

At Matthew 6:9 (King James Version) Jesus commenced the model prayer with, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name." At John 17:26 (KJV) in prayer to his father he said, "And I have declared unto them thy name." Exodus 6:3 (KJV) reads, "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." The Tetragrammaton [YHWH] appears almost seven thousand times in the Hebrew/Aramaic texts [OT]. Given that the translator of the King James Version acknowledged that God's name is Jehovah at Exodus 6:3 [as he does again at Psalms 83:18], why has he omitted the divine name almost seven thousand times from the rest of the Old Testament? To claim uncertainty as to the pronunciation of God's name is no excuse. Mary gave birth to a child whom she would have named in her Hebrew tongue Yeshua or Yehoshua. In the Koine Greek [NT] that name would have been Iesous or Iesious, but does anyone hesitate in using the name Jesus?

To illustrate the problem of omitting God's name, consider the rendering of Psalms 83:18 in the New International Version. It reads, "Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord, that you alone are the most high over all the earth." God's name is said to be 'the Lord', which, of course, is merely a title, and one that, for example, is accorded each member of The House of Lords in England. Contrast that with the New World Translation, which reads, "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."

Bible translators assume a grave responsibility in performing their task. To deny Jehovah's name in its rightful place within the scriptures not only dishonors our creator, but also assumes that they as translators know more about the matter than his only-begotten son did. Why? Because it assumes that Jesus' knowledge and understanding of future translating of the Bible would somehow be limited to, and not extend beyond, his time upon the Earth; that his model prayer, where he placed the hallowing or sanctifying of his Father's name at the top of things we should pray about, would quickly assume complete irrelevance, as the pronunciation of that name would somehow be lost. Jesus, referred to as 'The Word' in his pre-human existence [John 1:14], is described at Colossians 1:15, 16 as "the firstborn of all creation [through whom] all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth." He is the second most powerful entity in the universe with understanding and fore-knowledge granted to him by his Heavenly Father that is far beyond human comprehension [see Revelation 1:1; Philippians 2:9]. His sermon on the mount is universally praised for its insight and wisdom. Even his opposers had to concede, "Never has another man spoken like this." [John 7:46]

Jehovah has chosen to give himself a name. Is that unusual? Don't earth seven billion inhabitants each have names? Where do you imagine humans got the idea to give themselves names? Jehovah's name means 'He causes to become', a name that truly bespeaks his role as a creator and purposer. No translation of the Bible is likely to be entirely accurate, but to deny its inspired author His rightful place within its pages is nothing less than appalling. The committee that undertook the rendering of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is to be commended for the spirit and dedication its members adopted in ensuring that the Divine name received its proper place in its translation.

The question as to which translation is the most accurate will no doubt be bandied back and forth according to the prejudices or slanted views of commentators, but at the end of the day, what is most important is the honor that it accords its divine author, Jehovah God.

Answer 3

I am sure other scholars and professors will weigh in on this. For myself, if I am using the Hebrew Bible in a course, I tend to prefer the Jewish Publication Society translation; also useful and accurate is the Jewish Study Bible. If I am using the New Testament, the Revised Standard Version is quite good, as is the New International Version. (The old King James version, while beautifully written and useful as literature, is known for being inaccurate as far as its translation.) And a good Bible with both testaments and insightful commentary is the Oxford Study Bible.

Answer 4

There have been many English translations of the Bible but the most true to the original is said to the The King James version.