What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Smoke]

Least amount of bias?
And how would one do that unless they have the original authors explaining what they meant by what they wrote?

You have nothing to compare the translations to, not even the original writings.
The core of what was originally meant by what was originally written is forever lost.

So at best you are merely guessing.
At worse you are merely ratifying.

Every translation is biased. The translators have to make a lot of judgment calls and their bias will affect those calls. In my opinion, though, a scholarly bias is likely to distort less than a dogmatic bias, and a review by a number of scholars is likely to catch more errors due to bias - unless, of course, all the scholars share the same bias.

 

[Smoke]

The Protestants didn't "cut the parts they didn't like"; the books of the Old Testament they cut, the Apocrypha, actually don't appear in the Masoretic Text of the Jewish Tanakh, which was canonized around the second century C.E.

It should be noted that the Apocrypha, and several other books, however, do appear in the Septuagint, the Greek Jewish Bible, which was canonized earlier. A reason those extra books could have been removed from the Masoretic Text was because they were written originally in Greek, well after the other texts, as opposed to the other texts, which were written in Hebrew.

Strictly speaking, the MT didn't exist in the second century or for several centuries thereafter, though you can make a good case that it conforms closely to Hebrew texts in use then.

It's not entirely clear when the Jewish canon was closed and Christian attitudes toward the canon vary widely, but in the context of the Reformation the Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic Church and did indeed remove books that had been in use by the Roman Catholic Church. Luther wanted to remove James, Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse, too.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, I always thought it very odd that the very people who scream "Don't add or take away one jot or tittle from the Bible!" (fundamentalist Christians) are generally leaving out seven books of it in their own bibles - albeit they are probably completely unaware that they are.

 

[Smoke]

Hey mestemia, quick example please. one or two lines would do thank you.

There are a surprising number of them. For example:

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer ... (1 Chronicles 29.29)

Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon ... (Numbers 21.14)
​

Wikipedia has a list: Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

Hey mestemia, quick example please. one or two lines would do thank you.

There are a surprising number of them. For example:

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer ... (1 Chronicles 29.29)

Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon ... (Numbers 21.14)
​

Wikipedia has a list: Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you.
I replied to his PM but did not catch his reply in thread till you replied to it.

Here is a site that I find most intriguing:

http://www.thelostbooks.com/list.htm
​

Here is the beginning part of the page:

There are those that cling to a singular view of all things biblical. If it is not in the King James Bible exactly the way he had it translated, it is a fake, a forgery, or an insidious plot by Satan to corrupt the minds of men. Those works referenced here are not mentioned in the Bible but are associated with it. All, of course, are controversial to some, but authenticity is an individual decision. Anything else is, in any case, intellectual censorship. It should be noted that the references linked in this section are random and individual research must be done on all the books.

We have compiled a list of over 500 books that have been associated with the Bible either through archeological research or historical documentation. There is no guarantee that the books listed here are inspired works, or genuine books actually included in original versions of writings used by, and considered true by the Early Christian Church. We do not list any books believed to be written after the corruption of doctrine by the Universal Church established by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century AD.
​

Emphasis mine.

 

[Muffled]

Reading the bible is all well and good, but it does not answer the question, which if I am understanding correctly is: Given that the bible is a collection of mostly unrelated books, who chose them to be part of the collection and why? What are the criteria used in adding or removing a book from the canon list of books that is the Bible? Why were some books that were once canonical deselected? How do you know that there are not incorrect books in the current Bible, or that you aren't missing a very important bit of true information because it was in a book that didn't make the cut?

Actually I have read some of the Apochrypha and wasn't impressed by it.

 

[Muffled]

Every translation is biased. The translators have to make a lot of judgment calls and their bias will affect those calls. In my opinion, though, a scholarly bias is likely to distort less than a dogmatic bias, and a review by a number of scholars is likely to catch more errors due to bias - unless, of course, all the scholars share the same bias.

One could argue that having jesus as the translator eliminates the bias. The version that claims that advantage is The Living Bible. Of acourse the question can be asked whether the person always heard Jesus correctly.

 

[McBell]

One could argue that having jesus as the translator eliminates the bias.

Only to the choir.
To try that circular reasoning with anyone who does not accept your assumed premise will only lead to an epic fail.

The version that claims that advantage is The Living Bible. Of acourse the question can be asked whether the person always heard Jesus correctly.

Claims are worthless unless backed up with something outside the assumed premises.

 

[Smoke]

One could argue that having jesus as the translator eliminates the bias. The version that claims that advantage is The Living Bible. Of acourse the question can be asked whether the person always heard Jesus correctly.

I would argue that imagining you have Jesus as the translator eliminates any possibility of reasoned translation. I don't recall Kenneth Taylor saying he was just a scribe for Jesus when he produced the Living Bible, though he obviously used some process that was equally flawed.

 

[Muffled]

I would argue that imagining you have Jesus as the translator eliminates any possibility of reasoned translation. I don't recall Kenneth Taylor saying he was just a scribe for Jesus when he produced the Living Bible, though he obviously used some process that was equally flawed.

Reasoned translation is fallacious translation because the translators have to guess at the meanings.

The sources (one of which was Wikipedia) that I viewed simply stated that he paraphrased the Bible without mentioning any claim to inspiration. However I remember him on Christian television testifying that he formed his paraphrase with the aid of The Holy Spirit. Unfortunately I don't have any documentation of that broadcast.

On the contrary, having Jesus as a teacher is far more beneficial than simply relying on ones own interpretation. The hypocrisy amazes me though because his detractors probably have done their own interpretations and translators without the benefit of Jesus assisting them. In fact a person with a doctorate and pride in his intellectual capabilities is even less likely to seek help from Jesus.

PS: He used the NAST as his source and that is the version that I use.

 

[Smoke]

Reasoned translation is fallacious translation because the translators have to guess at the meanings.

If the Jesus is telling you what it means, the scriptures are obviously superfluous anyway.

The sources (one of which was Wikipedia) that I viewed simply stated that he paraphrased the Bible without mentioning any claim to inspiration. However I remember him on Christian television testifying that he formed his paraphrase with the aid of The Holy Spirit. Unfortunately I don't have any documentation of that broadcast.

Well, it's a horrendous paraphrase. Apart from the Evangelical bias, the English is clumsy and wooden. If Kenneth Taylor said that, the Holy Spirit should sue him for libel and defamation of character.

On the contrary, having Jesus as a teacher is far more beneficial than simply relying on ones own interpretation. The hypocrisy amazes me though because his detractors probably have done their own interpretations and translators without the benefit of Jesus assisting them. In fact a person with a doctorate and pride in his intellectual capabilities is even less likely to seek help from Jesus.

You've done it without Jesus helping you, too. Thinking that whatever pops into your little head is Jesus talking doesn't make you a better interpreter of the Bible.

PS: He used the NAST as his source and that is the version that I use.

Why don't you use the Living Bible, since it's inspired? Or does Jesus find it easier to inspire people if they're working off the NAS?

 

[Poet-Troll]

Back to the original question, which version, I suspect that one may be more accurate in one passage, while another may be more accurate in another. At least I know that my own translation (free download at lulu.com/ThomasMcElwain The Beloved and I volumes 1-4) is probably the most accurate in a few passages, but rather a mere paraphrase in others.

 

[logician]

I guess it is true that the supposed Jesus never said thee, thy or thine.

 

[Poet-Troll]

I guess it is true that the supposed Jesus never said thee, thy or thine.

Indeed he did not, that is true,
Nor did he utter yours or you.
He did not speak English at all.
That tongue was not writ on the wall
In the first century, you see.
Perhaps you forgot history.

 

[Muffled]

If the Jesus is telling you what it means, the scriptures are obviously superfluous anyway.

Well, it's a horrendous paraphrase. Apart from the Evangelical bias, the English is clumsy and wooden. If Kenneth Taylor said that, the Holy Spirit should sue him for libel and defamation of character.

You've done it without Jesus helping you, too. Thinking that whatever pops into your little head is Jesus talking doesn't make you a better interpreter of the Bible.

Why don't you use the Living Bible, since it's inspired? Or does Jesus find it easier to inspire people if they're working off the NAS?

That is like saying if your spirit tells the mind what to think, the mind is superfluous. Actually the spirit needs to work through the mind. It isn't necessary for Jesus to keep rewriting the Bible every time He teaches. He teaches from the Bible as witnessed in the Bible itself.

I don't agree. Certainly there are places where it seems less than perfect but paraphrases suffer that way as do similies. I suppose the question might be, is the person telling the truth about being guided by the Holy Spirit and was He faithful to that throughout the work or did he put in his own paraphrases on some occasions?

That is an assumption on your part. I take it by faith that the words come from Jesus.

I use what Jesus chose for me to use. That doesn't mean that it is better in general but it is the best version for me. I believe Jesus is quite capable of inspiring me in all the versions. I do believe personally though that a translation is better than a paraphrase for study.

 

[Muffled]

I guess it is true that the supposed Jesus never said thee, thy or thine.

Actually Jesus speaks all the languages known and unknown to man. He can use the thees and thous if He wishes. I wouldn't be surprised if He spoke to the Wesleys that way.

 

[Composer]

Actually Jesus speaks all the languages known and unknown to man. He can use the thees and thous if He wishes. I wouldn't be surprised if He spoke to the Wesleys that way.

. . . . the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: . . . . (John 14:10) KJV story book

So the story book confirms this story book Jesus couldn't and didn't speak anything of himself, he was just a puppet and mouthpiece for the story book God. (cf. John 10:30)

 

[Poet-Troll]

The best version has to be The New Jubilees Version of Sacred Scripture in Verse with Verse Commentary by Thomas McElwain
Thomas McElwain's Storefront - Lulu.com Volumes 1-4. Take 1 Kings 18:27 for example.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]27 It happened when noon came Elijah[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Made fun of them and said “Don’t hide you,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yell louder, since he is a god,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Maybe he’s talking for a prod,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Or hunting or on a long trip,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Or maybe he’s asleep, some lip[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Will wake him up, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]so rant and rip.”[/FONT]

 

[no-body]

If the Jesus is telling you what it means, the scriptures are obviously superfluous anyway... Apart from the Evangelical bias

When they say "Jesus is speaking to you" that's pretty much what they mean, the two are the same in their minds.

 

[Poet-Troll]

When they say "Jesus is speaking to you" that's pretty much what they mean, the two are the same in their minds.

This thread's about what version is
The best to use in Bible quiz,
Not whether those who hear their Lord
Speak to them when they have adored
Are right or wrong in what they do.
So take a look at what's in view
And then consider whether I
Provide a version worth the try.
The Beloved and I, vols. 1-4 at lulu.com/ThomasMcElwain