Qur'an: The most reliable translation

[gnostic]

None of them are particularly "reliable" in that all the translators have their own agenda on how to portray the Qur'an. That is why it is better to look at many different copies (and the Tafsir's) to get a proper overview. That way, you are not a slave to a single viewpoint.

That's my preferred method too. I have now 7 different translations of my favorite book - The Odyssey. 4 of these are actual books, the rest are electronic copies. I do, however find Robert Fagles' translation to be better than the rest.

When dealing with the Old Testament bible, I preferred to use the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1986's translation than all other translations. With the New Testament, I think NIV, seemed to better; I seriously dislike the King James' Version, but I will use KJV for "comparison" reasoning.

I just don't know about the Qur'an. Most RF members think Yusuf Ali. I have used Yusuf Ali's to compare it with others.

 

[Snowber]

Thanks, Snowber.

Do you have any preference to which translation as being most reliable?

(Reliable as being able to conveying the original message or context across.)

Hi Gnostic,

I found that, when comparing verses among different translations (and I've compared many before making a point to someone, so that I'm not giving them my one view), the message tends to be 99% similar is over 90% of the cases. Once in a while, you will find someone putting in their own opinions, though many times they show it in footnotes or parenthesis.

I found that Dr. Khalifa's translation is the easiest "English" to understand (layman's translation) and tends to be very accurate.

I have also read the translation by N.J Dawood and parts of the Yusuf Ali translation as well as bits and pieces on the comparison site I showed you.

I also believe that Dr. Khalifa's translation portrays the best understanding of the Qu'ran. Yes, this is my opinion, but i have debated with many Muslims about certain interpretations they may have and have come to the conclusion that Dr. Khalifa's is the most accurate.

 

[gnostic]

Response: The reason why muslims say that the best way to know the qur'an is by knowing arabic is because many non-muslims will play with the english translation to show error in the qur'an.

Whose fault is really?

Most of the translations of the Qur'an are done by English-speaking Muslims, not by non-Muslims.

Just like english, many arabic words have different meanings. Yet the non-muslim will try to utilize the different meanings of the english translation to prove a point. That leaves a muslim to reduce their argument to telling the person to learn arabic, in order to get the correct translation.

And you don't try to argue your points (with your own agenda) with the English translations of the bible?

And as DeitySlayer stated, would you take the time to learn ancient Greek or Aramaic to debate on the gospels or letters?

Why do you I've tried to use as many different English translations of the scriptures as I could get my on?

 

[kejos]

That's my preferred method too. I have now 7 different translations of my favorite book - The Odyssey. 4 of these are actual books, the rest are electronic copies. I do, however find Robert Fagles' translation to be better than the rest.

When dealing with the Old Testament bible, I preferred to use the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1986's translation than all other translations.

Why that preference?

 

[gnostic]

Which preference do you mean, kejos?

Are you talking about using more than translations to find the context or meaning of the passages?

Or are you referring to my use of JPS-1985 of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)?

 

[gnostic]

I found that Dr. Khalifa's translation is the easiest "English" to understand (layman's translation) and tends to be very accurate.

I have also read the translation by N.J Dawood and parts of the Yusuf Ali translation as well as bits and pieces on the comparison site I showed you.

I also believe that Dr. Khalifa's translation portrays the best understanding of the Qu'ran. Yes, this is my opinion, but i have debated with many Muslims about certain interpretations they may have and have come to the conclusion that Dr. Khalifa's is the most accurate.

I have not come across Dr Khalifa's translation?

 

[kejos]

Or are you referring to my use of JPS-1985 of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)?

Yes. Apologies.

 

[Snowber]

I have not come across Dr Khalifa's translation?

Hi Gnostic,

You can read it here:

Qu'ran Translation by Dr. Khalifa

Dr. Khalifa's views on Islam crumbles the traditional views many Muslims in Arab countries have today. It's no wonder they would try to prevent it from being heard of. Thank GOD we live in America, where we are free to read and think however we choose

 

[gnostic]

Yes. Apologies.

No need to apologise.

You just confused me, because you quoted both of my paragraphs, so I didn't know which one you wanted me to answer.

This was my view of the JPS, and little has change this.

Well, I think that if you must read the Hebrew scriptures, which in the case of the Christian OT Bible, then the literature or texts required to be in context with Jewish way of thinking than Christian ones.

Likewise, the NT (gospels and epistles), of course, required the context to be Christian ones than Jewish.

In any case, I find that Christian authors of the gospels and epistles tend to be just as biased, when they quoted from the Hebrew section (OT).

(What version of the bible do you find most accurate?)

 

[kejos]

This was my view of the JPS, and little has change this.

Well, I think that if you must read the Hebrew scriptures, which in the case of the Christian OT Bible, then the literature or texts required to be in context with Jewish way of thinking than Christian ones.

So is this version the only 'Jewish' English language version that you are aware of? It's not necessarily an answer to the question, this.

Why take the approach that, for the Qur'an, the more, the better, whereas for the OT or Tanakh, just one version suffices? Why even mention the OT when the thread is about the Qur'an- unless this is yet another gratuitous internet attempt to badmouth Christianity?

The principle here is one of scholarship, or rather complete lack of same, because comparing translations, however many, does not necessarily lead one to discover what the source language indicates. The 'average' rendition of a particular sentence or even phrase may be a result of thoughtless copying- either literally, or by conformity to a traditional interpretation; of indolence; or of social pressure that owes nothing to scholarship but rather to vested interests. So the eclectic approach is not one that any respectable scholar would admit to, whether the subject be the Qur'an, the Bible or any other translated work.

The bottom line is that one cannot make any conclusive comment on the basis of mere translations; one must work with original languages in order to contribute to respectable debate. To allege accuracy of a particular version of the Qur'an without knowing Arabic is merely to exhibit egregious bias; 'accurate' then means 'what suits me'.

Of course the evident reluctance of most Westerners to learn Arabic may be due in large part to the plagiarised nature as perceived of the Qur'an, that many have reckoned to contain a mere usurpation by an imagined deity of the Bible deity, that Muhammad and friends certainly did not believe to be imaginary.

 

[gnostic]

Why take the approach that, for the Qur'an, the more, the better, whereas for the OT or Tanakh, just one version suffices? Why even mention the OT when the thread is about the Qur'an- unless this is yet another gratuitous internet attempt to badmouth Christianity?

No, I think you have misunderstood me.

I only said I preferred the 1985's translation of the Masoretic Texts from JPS. I didn't say I rely solely on the JPS-1985.

I have 4 different bibles at home, which contained both OT and NT: KJV, Good News Bible, NIV and even a children bible. I have one Tanakh, from JPS, the Tanakh being an equivalent to the OT.

I also recently got myself of the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English.

I also have 2 electronic copies (one is html files and the other a single PDF file) of the Septuagint Bible, another JPS from 1917 (older translation), another KJV in html copies.

I am looking for a English translation of the Targum, which Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible and the Samaritan Pentateuch (or Torah).

I even have electronic copy (html) of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, translation by R.H. Charles, as well as the Gnostic texts (book) - Nag Hammadi Library by James M. Robinson. As well as the Haggada and Talmud (both of them in html format).

So no, kejos, I don't just rely on the JPS 1985's copy, especially when I go on RESEARCH mode.

 

[kejos]

No, I think you have misunderstood me.

Really? Someone wrote:

'That is why it is better to look at many different copies (and the Tafsir's) to get a proper overview. That way, you are not a slave to a single viewpoint.'

And you chimed in: 'That's my preferred method too. I have now 7 different translations of my favorite book - The Odyssey'

Seven translations, and sixteen for the Qur'an advocated here. And yet, just one for the Tanakh, because those Christian OTs are not 'texts required to be in context with Jewish way of thinking'. Required.

Willing slave to a single viewpoint?

This discrepancy and attitude are very easily understood, perhaps.

 

[gnostic]

Seven translations, and sixteen for the Qur'an advocated here. And yet, just one for the Tanakh, because those Christian OTs are not 'texts required to be in context with Jewish way of thinking'. Required.

There are many Christian bible (Christian meaning, the book has OT and NT) available in the bookstores in Melbourne, but there are only ONE available English translation of the Tanakh, by Jewish Publication Society (JPS). Sure there may be other translation other than JPS, but they aren't available in Melbourne.

What do you want me to do, kejos? Buy a different translation on the Amazon? Don't have a credit card.

In any case, the Tanakh by JPS come from the same sources that the Old Testament of KJV and NIV - the Masoretic Texts. In fact, if I wanted to investigate these other bibles in English, I can just jump on BibleGateway about 20 also translations (NKJV, NASB, NIRV, etc). However, all these translations including JPS, KJV, NIV (referring to the OT only), come from the same source - the Masoretic Texts.

I don't know what you want from me. I can find more translations, if I want, but nagging at me about what I have written or said, and seeming disappointed that I have one English translation of the Tanakh, seemed like you have issue with me or with me not owning more. I do try to read what I have, but I can find more if I have to. But as I said, I could only find one translation of the Tanakh by JPS (2 if you include the 1917 version).

I am sorry I don't have more translations of the Tanakh, kejos. What do you want? What's your problem, kejos?

 

[kejos]

There are many Christian bible (Christian meaning, the book has OT and NT) available in the bookstores in Melbourne, but there are only ONE available English translation of the Tanakh, by Jewish Publication Society (JPS). Sure there may be other translation other than JPS, but they aren't available in Melbourne.

What do you want me to do, kejos?

Say that you think it''s such a great pity that people in Melbourne don't see why it's important to have at least seven English translations of the Tanakh made by Jews. Especially when Muslims have sixteen translations of the Qur'an available made by Muslims. Because they cannot really expect to understand the OT without seven proper English translations, made only by Jews.

 

[gnostic]

Say that you think it''s such a great pity that people in Melbourne don't see why it's important to have at least seven English translations of the Tanakh made by Jews. Because they cannot really expect to understand the OT without seven proper English translations, made only by Jews.

Even if there are just one available translation of the Tanakh, that one can be used to compare it with its translation of the Masoretic Texts to other translations of the Masoretic Texts (such as the various bibles).

JPS is an excellent translation, and I preferred this over the NIV. The latest JPS (1985) has translated the Masoretic Texts from scratch.

Sure it would be great if I have access to more English translation from Jews, but I'll just have to make do with what is available to me.

Especially when Muslims have sixteen translations of the Qur'an available made by Muslims.

However, I have used a number of these translations here, but I still sometimes get interpretations from Muslims that not only conflict with my own interpretation, but also conflicting interpretations between one Muslim from another. Often, I am told to learn Arabic, but even if I was to learn Arabic, I may still get different interpretation. The translators sometimes have translated something that are quite different to other translators, because of their understanding of the contexts, even though these translators are Muslims.

 

[kejos]

Even if there are just one available translation of the Tanakh, that one can be used to compare it with its translation of the Masoretic Texts to other translations of the Masoretic Texts (such as the various bibles).

Exactly. Now why cannot Muslims do similarly with their Qur'an? Why do they need to get up to sixteen translations and compare them before they can come to a conclusion?

 

[Snowber]

Exactly. Now why cannot Muslims do similarly with their Qur'an? Why do they need to get up to sixteen translations and compare them before they can come to a conclusion?

Im sure there are a lot of reasons. Maybe some people want a Qu'ran in more plain english than "thy's and thou's". Maybe others don't think one translation does enough justice. Maybe they want to be as sure as possible?

 

[kejos]

Im sure there are a lot of reasons. Maybe some people want a Qu'ran in more plain english than "thy's and thou's". Maybe others don't think one translation does enough justice. Maybe they want to be as sure as possible?

Then why don't they learn Arabic?

 

[Snowber]

Then why don't they learn Arabic?

Some certainly due, but its not a necessity(to learn arabic) to be able submit to GOD alone. You can go to Heaven without knowing Arabic.

 

[kejos]

Some certainly due

Very few.

but its not a necessity(to learn arabic) to be able submit to GOD alone.

Maybe submitting to God is submitting to Jesus Christ- and maybe a knowledge of Arabic helps one to realise that.