what is the best bible translation for studying???

Question

I'm am going to study the bible, and am looking for the most accurate translation to do that. thank you

p.s if you could please explain why it would be the best.

Answer 1

My religion teacher told me the Oxford Annotated Bible..

it has academic commentaries and other extras.



check it out on wikipedia:

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

Answer 2

KING JAMES VERSION





This translation is translated from faithful text, the Textus Receptus. Most people do not like the 'thee' and the 'thou' in KJV, but read Gen 1:29! The light that God had graciously granted my Pastor is different!



Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given YOU every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to YOU it shall be for meat.



DID ANYONE EVER TEACH YOU THAT THE KJV TRANSLATORS USED 'YOU' TWICE right there in the first chapter of Genesis? Do you think the godly KJV translators were morons? It is todays morons who despised the best English version, the KJV. If you use the KJV, you have the chance to procure the blessed Holy Spirit presence, but not other versions!



God's approbation to use archaic words is also seen in 1 Samuel Ch9.





while many of the rest today are translated from the corrupt, harlot text, the Alexandrian text (AT).



eg NIV try checking out Acts 8:37

Try saying the Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:13



If those are not enough, the Jehovah Witness corrupt New World Translation uses the same AT; it is funny that many blind professing christians would not use the NWT, but happily uses bibles translated from the same text. An evil tree (AT) always produces evil fruit, no matter what the translation is!!

See Phil 2:6, NWT says Jesus is a lesser god, so too in NIV etc,.......

One CANNOT be converted using the NIV, NASV and all the corrupt versions translated from the AT, if you understand 1 Peter 1:25 correctly.





If you use the KJV, you have the chance to procure the blessed Holy Spirit presence, but not other versions! Use the version from corrupted text, and you sure get a corrupted spirit(s). It is up to you! If you are really interested, write to me.





/

Answer 3

New Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible are 2 good translations. The NIV is popular but has some significant issues in some cases if you're doing some hardcore studying. If you're really really serious learn some Greek and get the Greek N.T. since there is nothing more accurate since it is the language it was written in.



Personally I use the NRSV. I had a year of Greek and learned a ton.................but after 6 years I have forgot a ton but that's what the lexicon is for anyways.

Answer 4

Pick up two or three. I like CEV for reading, but my NRSV is a great study bible (partly because it has study notes on each page). After you have a couple translations, you can add (as a suppliment) a paraphrase (NLT, Message, etc) and commentaries. Juest remember those are not scriptural.



If you have time and have taken the languages, pick up a Greek NT and Hebrew OT with lexicons. Its kinda fun to figure out the translation yourself and see how close you come to what other scholars have said (that and it makes it come more alive to you). The Greek NT is a good thing to have around should some JW's show up to the door - you can always show them what John 1:1 really says.

Answer 5

"Fallen",

My advice is to use The Companion Bible. It uses the King James Version, but it contains over 100 appendices in the back that are a great study-help for many deeper truths about the biblical script, and the subjects of study as well as historical set and setting. Even though it is written in the King James Context, the marginal references help you understand what is meant.

Another good reason for using the King James Context is you can then use a STRONG'S concordance to take you back to the definitions of the Hebrew and Greek in which it originally written.

This book, the STRONG'S CONCORDANCE [not a YOUNG'S, or any other concordance] is relatively cheap and of necessity to any detailed study of the Holy Writ.

....it's the Bible and concordance I have used for years.

Answer 6

popular rule of thumb - get the latest translation you will discover. examine twenty third Psalm and music of Solomon. in the event that they examine like poetry, you're in the nicely suited place. in all probability any good bible might incorporate with a learn instruction manual version, yet remember that in case you circulate there, you at the instant are getting what some human pronounced approximately God's be conscious. you fairly could examine it and know it for your self. to totally know it, examine it from initiating to end, none of this "hopscotch" employer which would be particularly deceptive. that's a continuing garment, ok, possibly get 2 bibles. examine the only without assertion first. Then, and in easy terms then, examine the stuff on context. stay away from the theological interpretations thoroughly. stay away from the King James version. the final public of biblical scholars agree that that's the LEAST precise translation you will discover. .reward on your journey!

Answer 7

The New American Standard, and the New King James versions are the two I prefer. A Thompson Chain Reference will provide good helps and cross referencing of scripture, and is also available in many versions. Another good Bible for young Christians is the Transformer which comes in the New King James version and provides good helps for understanding.

The New American Standard is one of the most accurate English versions when compared to original scriptures, and it includes the benefit of today's English without loosing the cultural language that is important when studying the historic perspectives.

My first choice is the New King James, however I grew up with the original King James version.

Answer 8

The closest one to you.



If you can avoid it, stay away from the King James.



The English Standard Version is pretty good.



You could read the King James but what is the point?

You don't need all those thees and thous and, though some will argue, they have no Holy significance. Those who say it is the best were probably told that by a fanatic.



Keep away from the Mormon version or the J.W. as well.

Other than that there all pretty good.

Answer 9

There is NO "most accurate translation"



They all have their strengths and weaknesses.



Go to http://blueletterbible.org and you can open 6-8 different translations in different windows and compare versions. Makes for a more complete understanding. You may also see the original Hebrew/Greek and translate for yourself!

Answer 10

Actually, I'm partial to the King James Version because I'm an English major. But, because I'm Pagan, it can have it's moments.



I can't tell you which is the best. Different ones speak to different people.



Go to www.sacred-texts.org. They have several different versions of the Christian Bible, including some of the early ones like the Latin Vulgate.



Good reading!



Asha

Answer 11

The KJV is the best. It is translated from the Textus Receptus and doesn't have those subtle changes and omissions that these newer "user friendly" versions have. I would suggest a Strongs Concordance be used also in your studies.

Answer 12

The King James Bible is supposed to be the most

accurate.

Answer 13

The King James Version is the most original but the English is archaic and difficult to understand.



I personally would recommend the Amplified Version as it breaks down the words and gives you other meanings making it easy to understand

Answer 14

why dont you try reading quraan.bcoz you can read millions of bibles but you never ans any qs related to who jesus was and who is your creator.beleive it or not

Answer 15

NIV .It's great for beginer's

Answer 16

Douay Rheims





The Catholic Church, through her Popes and Councils, gathered together the separate books that Christians venerated which existed in different parts of the world; sifted the chaff from the wheat, the false from the genuine; decisively and finally formed a collection—i.e., drew up a list or catalogue of inspired and apostolic writings into which no other book should ever be admitted, and declared that these and these only, were the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. The authorities that were mainly responsible for thus settling and closing the 'Canon' of Holy Scripture were the Councils of Hippo and of Carthage in the fourth century, under the influence of St. Augustine (at the latter of which two Legatees were present from the Pope), and the Popes Innocent I in 405, and Gelasius, 494, both of whom issued lists of Sacred Scripture identical with that fixed by the Councils. From that date all through the centuries this was the Christian's Bible. The Church never admitted any other; and at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, and the Council of Trent in the sixteenth, and the Council of the Vatican in the nineteenth, she renewed her anathemas against all who should deny or dispute this collection of books as the inspired word of God.



What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books alone has the right to claim them as her own, and to say what the meaning of them is. The Church of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. James in the first century was the same Church as that of the Council of Carthage and of St. Augustine in the fourth, and of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth, and the Vatican in the nineteenth—one and the same body—growing and developing, certainly, as every living thing must do, but still preserving its identity and remaining essentially the same body, as a man of 80 is the same person as he was at 40, and the same person at 40 as he was at 2. The Catholic Church of today, then, may be compared to a man who has grown from infancy to youth, and from youth to middle-age. Suppose a man wrote a letter setting forth certain statements, whom would you naturally ask to tell what the meaning of these statements was? Surely the man that wrote it. The Church wrote the New Testament; she, and she alone, can tell us what the meaning of it is.



Again, the Catholic Church is like a person who was present at the side of Our Blessed Lord when He walked and talked in Galilee and Judea. Suppose, for a moment, that that man was gifted with perpetual youth (this by the way is an illustration of W. H. Mallock's, 'Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption', chap. xi.,) and also with perfect memory, and heard all the teaching and explanations of Our Redeemer and of His Apostles, and retained them; he would be an invaluable witness and authority to consult, surely, so as to discover exactly what was the doctrine of Jesus Christ and of the Twelve. But such undoubtedly is the Catholic Church: not an individual person, but a corporate personality who lived with, indeed was called into being by, Our Divine Saviour; in whose hearing He uttered all His teaching; who listened to the Apostles in their day and generation, repeating and expounding the Saviour's doctrine; who, ever young and ever strong, has persisted and lived all through the centuries, and continues even till our own day fresh and keen in memory as ever, and able to assure us, without fear of forgetting, or mixing things up, or adding things out of his own head, what exactly Our Blessed Lord said, and taught, and meant, and did. Suppose, again, the man we are imagining had written down much of what he heard Christ and the Apostles say, but had not fully reported all, and was able to supplement what was lacking by personal explanations which he gave from his perfect memory: that, again, is a figure of the Catholic Church. She wrote down much, indeed, and most important parts of Our Lord's teaching, and of the Apostolic explanation of it in Scripture; but nevertheless she did not intend it to be a complete and exhaustive account, apart from her own explanation of it; and, as a matter of fact, she is able from her own perpetual memory to give fuller and clearer accounts, and to add some things that are either omitted from the written report, or are only hinted at, or partially recorded, or mentioned merely in passing. Such is the Catholic Church in relation to her own book, the New Testament. It is hers because she wrote it by her first Apostles, and preserved it and guarded it all down the ages by her Popes and Bishops; nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, any more than a stranger has the right to come into your house and break open your desk, and pilfer your private documents. Therefore, I say that for people to step in 1500 years after the Catholic Church had had possession of the Bible, and to pretend that it is theirs, and that they alone know what the meaning of it is, and that the Scriptures alone, without the voice of the Catholic Church explaining them, are intended by God to be the guide and rule of faith—this is an absurd and groundless claim. Only those who are ignorant of the true history of the Sacred Scriptures—their origin and authorship and preservation—could pretend that there is any logic or commonsense in such a mode of acting. And the absurdity is magnified when it is remembered that the Protestants did not appropriate the whole of the Catholic books, but actually cast out some from the collection, and took what remained, and elevated these into a new 'Canon', or volume of Sacred Scripture, such as had never been seen or heard of before, from the first to the sixteenth century, in any Church, either in Heaven above or on earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth! Let us make good this charge.



Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting—that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called 'the Song of the Three Children', (Daniel iii., 24-90, Douai version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament it required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more con­servative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture—'an Epistle of straw' he called it, 'with no character of the Gospel in it'. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonoured the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel). The presumptuous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1000 years would be scarcely credible were it not that we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and may be read in his Biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott's The Bible in The Church. And why did he impugn such books as we have mentioned? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the principle of private judgment—of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and when­ever any book, such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste—as, for example, that 'it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins', 2 Mach. xii., 46—well, so much the worse for the book; 'throw it overboard', was his sentence, and overboard it went. And it was the same with passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain, and pronounced to be worthy to find a place within the boards of the new Reformed Bible. In short, he not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St Paul's doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith', and fearing lest good works (a Popish superstition) might creep in, he added the word 'only' after St Paul's words, making the sentence run: 'We are justified by Faith only', and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside of oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may, indeed you are bound to cut and carve out a Bible and a Religion for yourself. No Pope, no Council, no Church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. And the result we have seen in the corruption of God's Holy Word.



Yet, in spite of all reviling of the Roman Church, the Reformers were forced to accept from her those Sacred Scriptures which they retained in their collection. Whatever Bible they have today, disfigured as it is, was taken from us. Blind indeed must be the evangelical Christian who cannot recognise in the old Catholic Bible the quarry from which he has hewn the Testament he loves and studies; but with what loss! at what a sacrifice! in what a mutilated and disfigured condition! That the Reformers should appropriate unabridged the Bible of the Catholic Church (which was the only volume of God's Scripture ever known on earth), even for the purpose of elevating it into a false position—this we could have understood; what staggers us, is their deliberate excision from that Sacred Volume of some of the inspired Books which had God for their Author, and their no less deliberate alteration of some of the texts of those books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves the question—Which Christian body really loves and reveres the Scriptures most? Which has proved, by its actions, its love and veneration? and which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of Life?

Answer 17

My favorite: the New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition. Here's why: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm. You may also find the following useful:



OK, here's my "what bible should I pick" answer:



1st, I'll assume that you are not a member of a sect that demands using the King James Version (KJV) or any other particular version. (Unfortunately, most of these sects do not actually use the whole KJV.)



At this stage you want to decide what your bible should contain. Do you want a bible that contains 1) all scripture or 2) a selection of scripture? Besides editions that contain all scripture, there are editions that contain only new testament books, others containing only books from the Hebrew bible, and still others (the majority) which exclude several books in a somewhat cavalier fashion.



I will assume that you intend to read the entire bible, or at least wish to have the entire bible at your disposal. In this case, you must obtain a bible that includes the Apocrypha. There are some sects teaching that the apocrypha is not inspired scripture, and if you are a member of one of these sects then simply avoid reading these books. There is no other reason for avoiding the so-called apocrypha and every reason to get a bible which includes them. Here is a more in-depth discussion about this topic: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/dc.htm .



In my conclusion I will consider two cases:

1) You want a "complete" bible (Complete)

2) You don't care if the apocrypha is included or not (Open)



The next stage is to decide if you want a bible merely for reading and learning the text of the bible itself, or if you intend to study scripture more deeply and intensely in order to gain a greater understanding and to help you interpret the scriptures accurately. This is the difference between a "standard" edition bible and a (scholarly) study bible. I will refer to this as "purpose" when I make recommendations below.



Finally, you need to decide whether you want a translation that offers 1) ease of reading 2) literalness of translation or 3) accuracy of translation. I separate these even though they are not *necessarily* mutually exclusive. Different versions *do* (must) follow primarily one of these three criteria, however, and so should you when you make a decision. I will refer to this as "style" when I make recommendations below.



A note about the KJV: although excellent for its time, and including nearly the entire body of scripture, as well as marginal notes from the translators providing possible alternate translations (making it a passable study bible), the KJV uses 400-year-old English, 400-year-old scholarship (read: they didn't know as much as scholars today), and texts that lacked the last 400 years of archaeological discoveries. By no means was the KJV the first English version of the bible. It's main advantage today is that most people use some form of the KJV and it is often useful to use the same version as others in discussions of scripture.



Recommendations: you can look at a fairly thorough comparison of technical details of different versions here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/chart.htm , but what follows are my recommendations.



Comparisons of "literalness" of translation can be found here: http://www.preceptaustin.org/tool_commentary.htm#obt and here: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/relg/bible.scale.html and here: http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibles/bible_transchrt_js.jpg . An important note: "literal" does *not* equate with "accurate". A translation that is more literal does *not* equate to a translation that is more accurate. Indeed, in *any* language translation, literal translation is likely to lead to significant failings in accuracy of translation.



Style: Translated for Ease of Reading

....Purpose: Reading (Ease of Reading is not a relevant style for a study bible purpose)

........Content: Complete

............CEV (Contemporary English Version) - may have difficulty finding a complete version in print http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha-Contemporary%2Fdp%2F1585160210%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1187556958%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 , but available as an e-book on CD http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible%2Fdp%2F1585160059%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1187556881%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 . Second choice: NAB (New American Bible) - not as easy to read but still easy, translation accuracy may be slanted slightly by Roman Catholic bias.



Style: Translated for Ease of Reading

....Purpose: Reading

........Content: Open

............NIV (New International Version) - one of the easiest-to-read modern translations with higher marks for accuracy than most easy-to-read bibles



Style: Literalness of Translation

....Purpose: Study

........Content: Complete

............RSV (Revised Standard Version), New Oxford Annotated Bible, Expanded Edition - one of the most literal translations with some of the most scholarly study notes, though somewhat archaic language. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation) - literalness uncertain but copious translator's notes help the reader achieve this goal. Deutero-canonicals incomplete.



Style: Literalness of Translation

....Purpose: Study

........Content: Open

............NASB (New American Standard Bible), Scofield Study Bible - most literal modern translation, but study notes are for the most part independent of the translation. 2nd choice: RSV New Oxford Annotated Bible - not as literal as the NASB but more comprehensive and scholarly study notes, available without Apocrypha.



Style: Literalness of Translation

....Purpose: Reading

........Content: Complete

............RSV - most literal complete version, but somewhat archaic language. Make certain to get a version that includes the Apocrypha. (All "Catholic" bibles include *most* of these books, and "Expanded Edition" includes them all).



Style: Literalness of Translation

....Purpose: Reading

........Content: Open

............NASB - most literal modern-text bible, high marks for accuracy



Style: Accuracy of Translation

....Purpose: Study

........Content: Complete

............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Regular Edition - copious study notes, word use demonstrates great concern for accuracy of translation, my favorite version. 2nd choice: NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - includes complete deutero-canonicals, excellent scholarly study notes on par with NJB, but translation suffers slightly from over-zealous use of "inclusive" language



Style: Accuracy of Translation

....Purpose: Study

........Content: Open

............Same as above. New Oxford Annotated available without the Apocrypha.



Style: Accuracy of Translation

....Purpose: Reading

........Content: Complete

............NJB Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET - copious translator's notes may make this the most accurate translation, but requires study to absorb the translation; deutero-canonicals incomplete.



Style: Accuracy of Translation

....Purpose: Reading

........Content: Open

............NJB Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET. 3rd choice: NIV (New International Version) - highly regarded non-biased translation, not as careful as NJB but easier to read.





Recommendations for the true bible student (who doesn't know Greek or Hebrew):

1) Software including NASB, KJV, NRSV, NJB and NIV - I use Ellis (lacks NIV) but there is at least one other *affordable* (under $100) package providing this selection. Make certain a Strong's Concordance is also included.



2) NJB Regular Edition - get it if you can, don't settle for the Standard Edition. (My review here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm )



3) NASB - make certain to get the latest version. Get it in print if your software doesn't have it. Most literal translation.



4) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - NRSV translation demonstrates over-zealous use of inclusive language but the study notes are invaluable, perhaps better and less biased than NJB.



5) Oxford Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0192835254%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1190233697%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 - the complete books of the 1611 King James Version with printers errors removed and spelling modernized. No marginal notes.



6) KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha 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 - the complete 1611 edition, *including* marginal notes, with modernized spelling. Probably more valuable than 5), but it's a tough call.



7) A good bible dictionary, such as HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. There are a few equally good alternatives.



Honorable mentions:



1) Tanakh, 1995 edition, by the Jewish Publication Society - scholarly translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish scholars, very highly regarded.



2) NWT (New World Translation), With References - a very literal bible with some excellent though incomplete study notes. Shows significant but infrequent Jehovah's Witness bias and is available only from the WatchTower Organization (Jehovah's Witnesses). Reading this with the awareness of the bias (which is mostly documented in the bible itself) can be quite worthwhile to a student of the bible.



I hope this helps.



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