What are some of the best bible translations?

Question

Some of the worst would definitely be the Septuagint and the New American Standard Bible. Why not let God's word speak for itself, like in the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness Bible) or The Message?...which ofcourse are the original bibles.

Answer 1

I guess the one that carries the actual message across accurately. There are many good ones. One thing that I can say about the New World Translation that I find noteworthy, it replaces God's name where it is actually supposed to be.



You know, about the King James version. It was just a version that King James wanted to have in English. It is true that not a notable English language Bible came on the scene for a couple hundred years after this. But, it is not really the most accurate. They took out God's name in many of the verses. In fact, they all but removed it from the Bible. Over 7,000 times it appears in the original text and they removed it. We have come a long way since then.

Answer 2

Bibles are not translated by atheists. If they were, maybe they would be more accurate. But Bibles are mostly translated by Christians who ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE. And, as they translate, THEY WILL PUT THEIR BELIEFS INTO THEIR TRANSLATION. When they see the GREEK word "aionios," and they want to translate it into ENGLISH they will always use the LATIN word "eternus/eternal." They can't help it--THEY ARE DECEIVED!



The Old Anglo Saxon Bibles from 800 to 1000 AD used the English word "ece" for the Greek "aionios," and it meant "eonian"--pertaining to the ages. Try to find the English word "ece" in even a 2600 page English Dictionary. It is gone gone gone. Make no mistake about it: The King James Bible is a LATIN BIBLE! And virtually all modern English Bibles are virtually clones of all the errors found in the King James.

No translation is perfect. They all have flaws. Some are better than others. The King James is an very good translations overall. There are just certain key areas that the miss the mark completely.



If the KJV translated "aion and aions" as "age and ages" or "eon and eons," and if they translated "Hades" [usually translated 'hell'] the "unseen" or "imperceptible," it would then be one of the BEST translations.



The Concordant Literal New Testament is a good translation and CONSISTENTLY translates "Hades" and "aions" properly.



Most Bible students and scholars use anywhere from ten to over a hundred different translations in their studies. I have about thirty-five, and keep adding new ones. E-Sword is a great Free downloadable program in which you can access many many versions free of charge.



The Concordant Literal New Testament is a translation from the original Greek manuscripts, I also like Rotherhams.

Answer 3

Bear in mind that a version is a translation made directly from the original Hebrew or Greek: i.e. from Hebrew or Greek into Syriac, Latin or English; whereas a translation of a version into yet another language is simply called a translation. Bible versions were made in several languages within a few years of the New Testament's creation. This was a rarity in the ancient world for any book.



In the course of time many versions (translations from the original language) of Scripture were made. Let us now consider a few:



1. The Peshitta Version: (AD 150)

2. The Old Latin Vulgate (AD157): Must not be confused with Jerome's Vulgate, which was produced over 220 years later in AD 380. Jerome's Vulgate (also written in Latin for the Roman Church) was rejected by the early Christians for almost a millennium.

3. The Italic Bible: (AD157)

4. The Waldensian (AD 120)

5. The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177)

6. The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350)

7. The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400)

8. The Armenian Bible (AD 400) There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.

9. The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450)

10. The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535)

11. The Czech Bible (AD 1602)

12. The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606)

13. The Greek Orthodox Bible: Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church.



All the above mentioned Bibles and the vast majority (about 99%) of the 5200 extant New Testament MSS are in agreement with the text now known as Textus Receptus; the Text which underlies the Authorized King James Bible.



The King James Version (1611) This is the Real Word of God for our generation. The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim, under whose editorship it was printed in in 1524-5)



The Almighty has used it to further His work for coming on 400 years.



Today's MODERN English Bibles versions are ALL corrupt, including list a few of the 100+ modern Bibles which followed in the trail of the Revised Version of 1881-5:



* The American Standard Version (1901)

* The Moffatt Bible (1935)

* The Revised Standard Version (1952)

* The Amplified Bible (1958-64)

* The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

* The New International Version (1966)

* The New English Bible (1970)

* The New American Bible (1970)

* J B Phillips' New Testament (1972)

* The New American Standard Version (1971)

* Good News Bible (1976 and 1994)

* The New International Version (1978)

* New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

* The New King James Version (1984)

* New World Translation (1984)



Most, if not all, modern translations are based on the Revised Version (1881-5) which, as we have already learned, was influenced throughout by the Alexandrian manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.



Sad to say the revision committee when faced with a choice between trustworthy Textus Receptus and the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, usually chose the corrupt Egyptian manuscripts. To be sure the Egyptian codices, written on vellum, were in far better physical condition than the papyrus or parchment MSS.



With these sobering facts in mind let us now consider a Biblical principle of which comparatively few Christians know anything. It concerns SPIRITUAL POLLUTION, of how something unholy can pollute everything it touches. This little-known principle is described in the following passage:



(Haggai 2:11) "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,

12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.

13 Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean."



Does this spiritual principle, that diseased things pollute everything they touch, apply to Bible translations? I'm certain it does. The Bible is the Bread of Life, the strong spiritual meat for the soul. It can also become spiritually unholy, unclean and unacceptable to God if its words are infected by the unbelief of a scribe or translator or twisted out of context by the leprous spirit of Satan. That is exactly what happened to the holy manuscripts which were carried down to Egypt.



* First: the holy texts were corrupted by unbelieving scribes who did not recognize their divine origin . As far as they were concerned the Scriptures were merely the writings of a religious group called Christians based initially in Jerusalem and Antioch. Thus, in the process of copying, Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were corrupted in hundreds of places with deletions, additions and alterations, till they themselves became unholy, unclean and unacceptable to God.

* Second: we see many unbelieving translators daring to use those corrupt codices to translate the Word of God: men who rejected the fact that every word of Scri

Answer 4

Book: "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT"



Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. In Religious Studies from the University of Illinois , Urbana , an M.T.S. In New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School , and a Ph.D. In Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University , Bloomington



The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn's book are:



- The King James Version (KJV)



- The Amplified Bible (AB)



- The Living Bible (LB)



- The New American Bible (NAB)



- The New American Standard Bible (NASB)



- The New International Version (NIV)



- The New World Translation (NW)



- The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV)



- Today's English Version (TEV)



EXCERPTS FROM HIS BOOK:



Chapter Four: Examples of translation of the Greek word "proskuneo", used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one's knees, bow before. Scriptures discussed include Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt 2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, "... In our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... Translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God." Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use "worship" where the NW uses "did obeisance": "Here all translations except the NW have recourse to "worship" -- a rendering which makes no sense in this context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NW."



Chapter Five: A discussion of Philippians 2:5-11: "The NW translators... Have understood "harpagmos" accurately as grasping at something one does not have, that is, a "seizure." The literary context supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV's "thought it not robbery to be equal)..."



Chapter Seven: A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: "It is a tricky passage where every translation must add words." "The LB translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB -- the four Bibles that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most significant tendentious material. Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding the innocuous "other" in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators... But the NW is correct. "Other" is implied in "all", and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit... It is ironic that the translation of Col . . 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the "added words" are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek."



Chapter Eight : A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1, 2: "... The position of those who insist "God" and "Savior" must refer to the same being... Is decidedly weakened."



Chapter Nine: A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: "so we must conclude that the more probable translation is "God is your throne..., "the translation found in the NW.... It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred."



Chapter Ten: A discussion on John 8:58: "Both the LB and the NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this." "There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around "I am."



"The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of "I am", and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate." "All the translations except the LB and NW also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators." "No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression "I am," which, if you think about, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any l

Answer 5

First of all, the New World Translation is not only contradictory according to the doctrines the JW's are taught, but it's alleged Greek translation is imaginary, at best. It is not so original.



The Message, while easy to read in it's modern English fashion, is also not so original. It makes a lot of scriptures easy to read, but it has a number of verses which used such modern lingo, they lost full meaning by using English words which were weaker in their meaning. But, the translation overall holds the main principles which God intended to speak through the writers.



As for other translations, each has its merit. None are 100% accurate, even the KJV, contrary to "KJV only" people's claim. However, one has to understand what scholars have called ipsissima verba, vs. ipisissima vox, or the exact words vs. the exact voice. The exact voice is protected right down to the last minor detail.

Answer 6

The most accurate to the original would be Greek or Hebrew. The texts don't really translate well into English. Example: Leviticus 11:20, KJV-All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.



If you want the most accurate text to the original, go with the original. Translations somewhat warp the meaning of these verses.

Answer 7

The most accurate OT you'll find is the Masoretic Text, likely the closest and truest to the original scrolls. The RSV tracks MAS the closest.



The Septuagint is really faulty. Very badly maintained while in Hebrew. Any translation that relies heavily on it will be just as bad.

Answer 8

The NWT is a badly flawed translation, and The Message is a paraphrase.



Another very bad one is the CEV (Contemporary English), which claims to be a faithful translation, but is in reality a very poor paraphrase.



There really is no "best" translation. All have their flaws. But I would avoid paraphrases, and avoid bad translations like NWT and paraphrases pretending to be translations, like CEV.



Best solution for getting at the truth of scripture is to study Hebrew and Greek. It takes time, but is well worth the effort. Then you can find out what it really says, and can compare the translations to the original.



And just a note for the KJV only crowd: I can show you a minimum of 17 translation errors in KJV, where it contradicts the Hebrew or Greek. It's no better than the modern versions.

Answer 9

The New World Translation is a sickening joke. It was written by JWs to prove their religion, not the other way around. I remember the day when Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the day that the world would end, and it didn't come true.--



Jesus quoted from the Septuigent--did you know that?

Answer 10

Yikes, this is a sensitive subject for some. I personally don't care which translation people read...as long as they read it! I like the NIV because it's in plain English that all English speakers can understand. I don't like KJV because honestly, it takes too much work to read it...

Answer 11

It depends on what you want your Bible to say, and how comprehensible you want the English to be (I'm assuming you want it in English, since you asked the question in English).



I would be willing to bet any amount of money, that anything titled "something something Translation", including the "New World Translation" is not the original Bible.

Answer 12

the best would be an interpretaion called "Nights at the Circus" by Angela Carter. It shows truth better than any bible translation ever has.



PS: Nights at the Circus has never been re-written to seem more beleivable or to hide any facts that a group of old people are afraid of.



Good day!

Answer 13

I like the King James Version and the Amplified Version

Answer 14

The New American Standard Bible is, for me, the best. You are as mistaken about your Bibles as you are about your doctrine.

Answer 15

You should avoid the NWT and the Message is horrible. Jesus is God and the only way into heaven. Please pray a sincere prayer with all of your heart admitting to Jesus you are a sinner. Have full faith that His blood pays off all of your sins and accept His gift of everlasting life. I pray that God blesses you with peace. Amen.

Answer 16

What are some of the best bible translations?

--The best bible doesn't need to be translated (Hebrew Bible).

Answer 17

I use NIrV (Beginer's Bible) because it's easy to understand!

Answer 18

Here's some I baked earlier:



God moves in mysterious ways (we have no idea what just happened, but we’ll just assume it has a supernatural cause)

God is beyond the comprehension of men (just don’t ask us how we know this)

You must have faith (Didn’t I just say to stop asking questions)

It’s all part of God’s plan (honestly, we have no idea what’s going on)

The faithful will go heaven when they die (It must be true. otherwise we’ve been wasting our time and looking like idiots, haven’t we? )

Answer 19

King James is probably least tampered with. Have fun with your delusion!

Answer 20

NIV, its easiest to understand.

but this is for Christians, not jehovah witness.

Answer 21

nwt is not good it is apostasy

Answer 22

KJV