Bible translations. Have you done any research, Christians...?

Question

Into the scriptures... what are you finding is the most reliable translation?

My personal experience: I have an NIV Thompson Chain Ref. Great for studying, it was just great... until I found that it was missing parts of verses... that the original KJV has.

Scriptures that shouldn't be modified... that are missing important information. (from the NIV to the KJV)

What have you found?

Comments as to why this happens...more than..."it's lost in the translation"...because that isn't what is happening here. This is clearly... missing information... not a translational error.

Answer 1

if you want the original bible with out ANY translation error. find a torah in hebrew (for the old testament) and the new testament in greek or latin, which ever it was written in first.

Answer 2

Ok. Here's the deal with the translations. They all came from the originals, right? But we don't have the originals any more. They were written on very frail ancient paper which has long since disappeared. However, there are zillions of very ancient copies of the originals. And for the most part, the copies are the same. However, sometimes there is a small discrepency -- in which case, the KJV was taken from a different text than the NIV. Some claim that the actual KJV transcripts are better. This is an opinion that I hold to. However, I get sick of people misunderstanding the KJV because it is in old English and no one speaks that way any more. And yes, I've even heard pastors get it wrong at times.



There is another deal with the translations. Some of them are word-for-word translations, and some of them are thought-for-thought translations. The word-for-word translations basically take each word and find an English equivalent for it. The thought-for-thought translations say "this is what the author probably meant, so we're gonna write it like this." So, for a more precise translation, I'd go with the word for word. But for a general idea, I'd go with the thought-for-thought.



KJV, NKJV, NASB and the English Standard Bible are all word-for-word. NIV and NLT and most of the others are thought-for-thought translations.



In the end, none of them is really better than any of the others. I study from a variety of different translations, because if you stick to one like glue, it will have it wrong somewhere along the line. Fallible man did the translating. It's just what happens. But don't be paranoyed about it either. For the most part, it's pretty accurate. I'd say... 98% of the time it's accurate. And where one has missed, another is good. So study 'em all -- that's my take on it.



Oh, but I have to say that one translation I don't respect very much is The Message. As a amateur Koine Greek scholar, I find that one to be more like a commentary -- a bunch of people's ideas on the Bible -- than like an actual translation. Not that you should never study it, but just compare it to the others while you do so.

Answer 3

Yes, I have done extensive study(over 45 years).



The NIV is a relatively good translation. It has a good balance between being readable and reliable.



It would take some work, but If you want to know what is in ALL the manuscripts of the NT which have been found all over the world, you can buy the latest edition of Nestle's

"Novum Testamentum Graece" and it show ALL variations of all these manuscripts at the bottom of each page.



If you do not know Koine Greek, you can still get an English interlinear which will show each word in Nestles (the text is still in the original Greek) and one of Strong's word studies of the Greek Bible.



Then you can, from the abundance of evidence, see what is "lost" in some translations and how little difference the variations make on the meaning of the original text. THAT is what I have found.



I have three semesters of Ancient and Classical Greek before taking three YEARS of formal seminary teaching in Koine Greek and then 40 years of professional and personal study(which I still enjoy daily).

Answer 4

Yes. I also use the NIV as my personal study Bible. I believe it is the most clear of the modern translations.



The correct question you might ask is not- why did the NIV remove some verses- but why did the KJV add some verses?



Most, not all, but most modern translations use the 'Nestle-Aland "Novum Testamentum Graece" ' 27th edition for their New Testament text source. This is undoubtedly the best NT source available today with little opposition. The King James used mostly the "Textus Receptus" which was not complete until after the 2nd edition of the King James was published. It is not without dispute- and its a single source document. In some King James editions those verses are identified with brackets or they are in italics to denote a question with their authenticity. Unfortunately many editions do not have this notation.

Answer 5

Yes, there is an unjustified reduction of original text in some of the modern versions. The difference in the versions stems from differences in the underlying Greek texts in combination with different translation philosophies. I personally use the KJV because I find it is a compelling combination of valid Greek texts and translational style. The NIV and other more recent translations use the United Bible Society Greek (UBS), which is the offspring of German critical school redactions (cutting down of text) based on the discovery of a few very old, but very out of mainstream, manuscripts. The lively textual tradition, the mainstream, is known as the Byzantine text, sometime also known as the Majority Text, because the majority of Greek text families derive from it. The Byzantine tradition was the main force behind the Greek text of Erasmus (aka the Received Text), which in turn became the basis for the Geneva and ultimately the King James translations. These translations have not been "butchered" by critical theorists, but have been mainly under the care of those who regarded God as quite capable of preserving His word for His people for the entirety of the church era.

Answer 6

How accurate is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures:



Old Testament:

In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:

"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."



New Testament:



While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.



“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:



King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.



The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:



John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1



Jason BeDuhn

Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair

Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion

Northern Arizona University



(Please note that according to Dr. Jason BeDuhn, only the NWT translated John 1:1 correctly)



.

Answer 7

The best Bible I have ever bought or seen or heard about is The New Jerusalem Bible (Doubleday). It is a post-doctoral level brain burner directly translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into English (Old Testament) and from Greek into English for the New Testament. It was put together by 70 theologians the world over and has absolutely everything you would ever want in a Bible. I don't even read my King James Version, NIV, Revised Standard Version or any of the various paraphrased editions I have. It cost me $30.00 20 years ago. It probably is $60.00 or so today. Look into it.

Answer 8

1. KJV is NOT ORIGINAL! Wyclif (and his co-workers) completed the FIRST English Bible version around 1385, over 2 centuries BEFORE the KJV. The first "authorized" version was the "Great Bible."



2. The KJV translators ADDED several verses. Many modern versions have attempted to restore the text to its TRUE BASIS, eliminating numerous SPURIOUS passages. One of these is not found in any Greek manuscript, Latin translation, or any other language translation before the 14th century. That is VERY STRONG EVIDENCE that it is NOT AUTHENTIC, yet the KJV only crowd continues to stand by it.



3. The KJV contains literally thousands (one listing I have seen includes over 4800 entries) of DELIBERATE mistranslations, places where the workers KNOWINGLY represented the text IMPROPERLY for whatever reason.

Answer 9

The KJV was translated from newer versions of the original manuscripts. The "missing verses" weren't there in the first place.



Personally, I like the NIV and RSV. The KJV is too hard to understand for a modern reader to even think about looking to for spiritual guidance.

Answer 10

I have the same Bible! but, I find that every version has mistranslations. Some have deletions, some have additions. When I study I use them all, plus the assorted commentaries and Greek lexicons. I have a set of ISBE's that I got back in 1985 that I just love! However, even with all the "helps" I have on hand I suspect that the original texts were tampered with to such an extent that we are still just guessing that what is there may be correct. But, since it's all we got, it'll have to do.

Answer 11

I agree with the answerer that suggested reading the Torah for the real hebrew translation of the old testament, and find the new testament in greek and latin. And if you really want to cook your noodle try reading the bible in another language same translation. All I want is to get the essence of the true nugget of God's word and let the holy spirit lead me in my own personal relationship/faith/walk, giving me the answers to help me in everyday living. All translations I use as my "Dummy Books", and "Footnotes" to getting there. Just like I used different "Dummy Books" and "Footnotes" in college to understand man's interpretation of a lot of things.

Reading gives knowledge, knowledge enlightens, translations broadens the readers knowledge.

Answer 12

You can download the E sword bible study help from the internet.You will have access to several translations and can compare them quickly.You can do word studies and learn the meanings behind the original words that have been translated .concordence,bible dictionary etc etc. Its a great tool.If I were to buy another bible it would be the NASV or JB Greens inerlinear bible they are both great and accurate translations.

Answer 13

1) what are you finding is the most reliable translation?

My *personal opinion* is that it is the New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition. Here's why

http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm



This should help

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20071222112235AA6Dfwr



Please take the time to read the first link given in this old answer before reading the balance of this answer. If you *don't* want to read through all of that, the conclusion is, essentially, that we cannot tell which is most accurate (closest to the original) by any objective measure, particularly when comparing modern, scholarly translations. I *feel* that certain attributes of the New Jerusalem Bible point to it as a more accurate translation than competing versions, but this cannot be soundly proven.



Points:

1) NJB does not use the inaccurate and ambiguous translation "Lord" for the tetragrammaton (and for "Sabaoth" and "Paraclete" as well)

2) NJB appears to use advanced vocabulary in many passages in order to convey a very specific meaning (i.e. precise translation). It is common to find a "muddying" of meaning in translations using over-simple vocabulary.



2) that the original KJV has

OK, this needs to be addressed.

a) The NIV is not "missing" verses in the New Testament (NT) (I will address the Old Testament (OT) below). Rather, the KJV *adds* *verifiably inauthentic* verses to the NT. Any good study bible will explain, *in each instance*, *exactly* why verses that appear in older bibles (such as the KJV) do not appear in modern, scholarly translations.

b) Most KJV editions in print today omit a *huge* portion of the KJV translation, including the *entire* apocrypha, the *entire* "Translators to the Reader" section (*very* important, read it here)

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

and the *entire* set of marginal notes which offer literally *hundreds* of alternate translations for ambiguous passages. See what a *complete* KJV looks like here

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36

Pay *special* attention to the marginal notes, which the translators felt were *necessary* to include (which you can discover for yourself by reading the Translators to the Reader).



So, scriptures shouldn't be modified? Missing important information? You're not kidding. Such is the case with nearly every edition of the KJV available today (I recommend two below).



3) Scriptures that shouldn't be modified

This needs to be addressed further. Understand that the *verifiable* modification to scripture of which you are speaking is the *known addition* of several verses to the NT by people other than the original authors. In other words, these verses of which you are speaking are omitted from the NT *because* we *know* that they are *unauthentic additions*. It is *not* the omission that is a modification of scripture, but the *inclusion* of these verses that modifies scripture!



I will be happy to give you the details on any specific passage. Just e-mail.



Recommended KJV for study (because they include the complete translation *and* the excellent marginal notes):



KJV (Paragraph) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FKJV-Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0521843863%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044700%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325

A scholarly effort to duplicate the original KJV *translation* (as opposed to any particular printing). Spelling is modernized (not the wording) and the complete contents of the original translation is here, including the excellent marginal notes.



KJV 1611 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-King-James-Version%2Fdp%2F1565631609%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044819%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325

This is a "replica" of the original 1611 printing. Each word on each page is in precisely the same position as in that original printing. It also includes the excellent marginal notes. The *spelling* in this edition is also identical to the original, and at 1st will cause readers some difficulty (but only at 1st). Once you have mastered the transposition of u and v, and of i and j, you will likely find it just as easy to read as an Oxford Revision KJV. Fortunately, this edition does not use the original Germanic lettering of the original, and instead uses the Roman lettering to which we are all accustomed. Possibly the best bible to use when discussing scripture with a KJV-only Christian, as this is about as close as you can get for under $100 to the *actual* *original* KJV. It is also quite reasonably priced.



Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 14

I would say there are some that are good and some that are bad. Many translations, though they say things in different ways, don't "modify" scripture, they just "contextualize". That is, they all have a different degree to how literally (word for word, phrase for phrase, concept for concept) they translate something.



KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASV all translate pretty word for word

NIV is more like phrase for phrase

NLT is more like concept for concept



Be careful on the concept for concept ones as they sometimes to actually change the meaning.

Answer 15

The KJV is not "the original", dear.



The original(s) (which are actually just the earliest known copies - and there's more than one) do have certain differences. That is why some versions are different from some others... because there is argument over which of the originals should be trusted.

Answer 16

It really doesn't matter which translation you have. The bible stories are allegorical.



It's like saying which is better "The Canterbury Tales" in the original Middle English, an Old French translation, a Modern English translation or a version in Italian?



Same difference!

Answer 17

I have indeed.The best one to me is the Thompson chain reference KJV.

Answer 18

The Revised Standard Version is a joint effort by Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic scholars to find a mutually acceptable version. The Old Testament was done by Jews, the New Testament was done by Protestants, and the Catholics added some footnotes.

Answer 19

If you were to compare even KJVs mathew chap 28 is missing it's last three verses in many books, errors or deletions , who knows

Answer 20

KJV



If only because it has no copyright restrictions.



Somehow having to copyright versions of scripture just rubs me the wrong way.

Answer 21

(Christian evolved into an atheist)



I did my own research and what I found out was yet another reason to drop out of organized religions.



The "Bible" was put together by the First Council of Nicea. It is a set of filtered texts inspired by what some Christians scribes had put in writing many decades after Jesus' death and from tales and letters circulating among the sects found in the remnants of the Roman Empire... Not exactly a "first hand" text.



It was lead by emperor Constantine. Not only was he a self-righteous psychopath, he was also a renown phallocrat and quickly imposed the rule of male supremacy by removing as many references to major female characters as he could. This destroyed women influence within the Empire and relegated them to second-class citizens, before spreading throughout Occident.



Also, any gospel having any chance to be true was quickly removed or altered. There are 2 gospels that the Vatican recognized has having been written by actual apostles (Matthew and Luke), but deemed them too controversial to be included in the Bible.



There is also the problem with the Old Testament. It is a series of stories passed down from generation to generation until they were put down in writing. Most of these tales are impossible to verify because they cannot be crossed with any other references. Per example, it is easier to recount the history of Ancient Egypt, because the Nubians and the Mesopotamians also kept records of what was happening, while, for some reason, we cannot find any traces of what the Old Testament claims. It is strange that a major flood or a series of plagues would go unnoticed, especially if they were global disasters...

Answer 22

Do you honestly think this is the first time things have been "mistranslated" or left out? What do you think of the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary? NOT in the KJV, entire books were left out. Try researching Gnosis. Is it any wonder that people are losing faith?

BB

)O(

Answer 23

I have the ESV and I like it. I have heard some good things about it.

Answer 24

You can compare various translations here



http://www.biblegateway.com/

Answer 25

I tell you one thing, a day is a day is a day.