What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[The Enlightened One]

The NIV IMO, but then again I'm not christian.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The NIV IMO, but then again I'm not christian.

Could you offer an example where the NIV is "most accurate"? Thanks.

 

[EtuMalku]

My favorite without doubt is 'The Diabolicon'

 

[The Enlightened One]

Could you offer an example where the NIV is "most accurate"? Thanks.

The NIV is alot easier to read, and I believe the translations are more accurate. If you want a specific scripture, I would have to pick out Isaiah 14:12. Thanks to St. Jerome and the Scribes, we have the KJV; thanks to scholars worldwide, we have the NIV.

 

[Riverwolf]

The NIV is alot easier to read, and I believe the translations are more accurate. If you want a specific scripture, I would have to pick out Isaiah 14:12. Thanks to St. Jerome and the Scribes, we have the KJV; thanks to scholars worldwide, we have the NIV.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!"
JPS (Jewish Publication Society)

Why this specific verse?

I've actually heard many Biblical studiers here say that the NIV is actually one of the worst translations.

 

[McBell]

I've actually heard many Biblical studiers here say that the NIV is actually one of the worst translations.

I can the same exact same thing and replace "NIV" with almost any other version...

 

[The Enlightened One]

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!"
JPS (Jewish Publication Society)

Why this specific verse?

The KJV replaces "day-star" with "Lucifer", whereas the NIV translates it with ""morning-star", son of the dawn".
I chose that specific verse because it is personal to ME and MY beliefs. I get alot of "flack" over the term Lucifer from followers of the RHP because of that mistranslation in the KJV. What does a babylonian king have to do with Satan? I may be interpreting the verse out of its intended context, but isn't it all a matter of speculation? Whether or not the verse was referring to the "devil", that verse has gotten me into many a heated argument with some of my most beloved family members, usually ending with negative effects on our relationship.
Thats why I picked that specific verse.
As for the NIV being vastly incorrect... I wouldn't know. All that I have to trully compare it to is the KJV because those are the only two I have "picked up". In my opinion, the NIV is a more accurate translation than the KJV; as far as it being more accurate than any other bible, like I said, I wouldn't know. It looks like I have more research to do on my part. Thanks BTW, I have never before heard of the JPS, so maybe that would be a good place for me to start.

 

[Riverwolf]

The KJV replaces "day-star" with "Lucifer", whereas the NIV translates it with ""morning-star", son of the dawn".
I chose that specific verse because it is personal to ME and MY beliefs. I get alot of "flack" over the term Lucifer from followers of the RHP because of that mistranslation in the KJV. What does a babylonian king have to do with Satan? I may be interpreting the verse out of its intended context, but isn't it all a matter of speculation? Whether or not the verse was referring to the "devil", that verse has gotten me into many a heated argument with some of my most beloved family members, usually ending with negative effects on our relationship.
Thats why I picked that specific verse.
As for the NIV being vastly incorrect... I wouldn't know. All that I have to trully compare it to is the KJV because those are the only two I have "picked up". In my opinion, the NIV is a more accurate translation than the KJV; as far as it being more accurate than any other bible, like I said, I wouldn't know. It looks like I have more research to do on my part. Thanks BTW, I have never before heard of the JPS, so maybe that would be a good place for me to start.

Have you taken a look at the rest of this thread? That's what the entire discussion is about. :yes:

Even though it's been many months, I still prefer the New Jerusalem Bible, almost simply because Tolkien was one of the editors.

 

[Riverwolf]

I can the same exact same thing and replace "NIV" with almost any other version...

Have you studied, in-depth, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Ancient Greek, and the texts of the Bible in their original languages and compared them to the modern translations?

 

[McBell]

Have you studied, in-depth, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Ancient Greek, and the texts of the Bible in their original languages and compared them to the modern translations?

Nope.
I am merely stating the fact that I have heard many people who have say the exact same thing about all the translations.

Which is merely to reinforce the fact that the translations are heavily reflecting the bias, prejudice, and beliefs of the translator.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The KJV replaces "day-star" with "Lucifer", whereas the NIV translates it with ""morning-star", son of the dawn".
I chose that specific verse because it is personal to ME and MY beliefs.

So we are dealing not with selecting the more accurate but with selecting the one that best validates your presuppositions, i.e., with selecting the more comfortable. This is fine (albeit intellectually barren), but to equate comfortable with accurate is simply deception -- perhaps self-deception. Do you even care what the Hebrew text says?

 

[Riverwolf]

Nope.
I am merely stating the fact that I have heard many people who have say the exact same thing about all the translations.

Which is merely to reinforce the fact that the translations are heavily reflecting the bias, prejudice, and beliefs of the translator.

And yet I've heard that several translators have managed to keep their bias out quite well, primarily in the scholarly translations.

 

[McBell]

And yet I've heard that several translators have managed to keep their bias out quite well, primarily in the scholarly translations.

I have heard the moon is made of green cheese.

Guess it depends upon who you do and do not trust.
Or perhaps it boils down to finding the translation that best ratifies what you want the Bible to say...?

 

[The Enlightened One]

So we are dealing not with selecting the more accurate but with selecting the one that best validates your presuppositions, i.e., with selecting the more comfortable. This is fine (albeit intellectually barren), but to equate comfortable with accurate is simply deception -- perhaps self-deception. Do you even care what the Hebrew text says?

By the sounds of it, the verse that I chose WAS more accurate in the NIV than it was in the KJV. The topic was "which version of the bible do YOU find most accurate", so yes, I picked the one that I MYSELF felt to be more accurate; whether you think so or not. Truthfully I feel that the Satanic bible is most accurate because I don't have to figure out what is fact or fiction or whether it was translated correctly, but I assumed that the poster was referring to theistic religions(if not, please correct me). As far as the Hebrew text, I DON'T KNOW what it says. Like I said, I chose the one that I(very important here, keyword being "I") felt was more accurate. If you would like to enlighten me on what the hebrew text says then please send me a link to a good resource with an english translation, I would love to research further into it so I don't sound so narrow minded :help:

 

[Riverwolf]

I have heard the moon is made of green cheese.

Guess it depends upon who you do and do not trust.
Or perhaps it boils down to finding the translation that best ratifies what you want the Bible to say...?

It boils down to finding the translation that has the least amount of bias. To do this, read several versions, analyze them, compare them, and talk with those who actually study the Bible extensively.

 

[McBell]

It boils down to finding the translation that has the least amount of bias. To do this, read several versions, analyze them, compare them, and talk with those who actually study the Bible extensively.

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.

 

[Riverwolf]

By the sounds of it, the verse that I chose WAS more accurate in the NIV than it was in the KJV. The topic was "which version of the bible do YOU find most accurate", so yes, I picked the one that I MYSELF felt to be more accurate; whether you think so or not. Truthfully I feel that the Satanic bible is most accurate because I don't have to figure out what is fact or fiction or whether it was translated correctly, but I assumed that the poster was referring to theistic religions(if not, please correct me). As far as the Hebrew text, I DON'T KNOW what it says. Like I said, I chose the one that I(very important here, keyword being "I") felt was more accurate. If you would like to enlighten me on what the hebrew text says then please send me a link to a good resource with an english translation, I would love to research further into it so I don't sound so narrow minded :help:

:clap Beautiful, wanting to seek more knowledge. Not too bad a response to Jay, either.

I can give you some suggestions for good scholarly translations that also have commentaries so you can study more in-depth what's being said and various interpretations.

For the Torah, read:
Robert Alter
Everett Fox
Richard Eliot Friedman.

For the entire Tanakh (Jewish Bible), you can get the Jewish Study Bible.

These should be available at your local library. Jay will be able to refer you to more texts.

For the Christian Bible, I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible, but I've heard the New Revised Standard Version (NRVS) is good, as well as the English Standard Version (ESV). The Updated New American Standard Version (Updated NASV) also got a good review, as did the New American Bible (NAB.)

The New Jerusalem Bible and the NAB are both Catholic Bibles, so they contain more books in the OT: books that collectively are called "Apocrypha," which were not included in the Masoretic Text of the Jewish Tanakh, however were included in the Jewish Septuagint along with several other books. (The other major difference between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint is that the latter was compiled first, finished sometime in the 1st Century B.C.E., and written in Greek, whereas the former was canonized around the 2nd Century C.E. in Hebrew. Besides that, there are several textual differences between the two.)

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Guessing at best? That's not accurate. What is to be done, based on the steps I pointed out above, is speculate. Anyone can guess, few can give educated guesses, which have a far greater chance at being correct.

You are right in that we don't have access to the original writings, nor do we have access to the original authors to ask them what they meant, and even if we did, the language they spoke would have been so different that nobody would understand them.

That's the reason for Comparative Religion. We can theorize that several of the Genesis stories and laws, for example, are reverses of earlier Mesopotamian myths and practices, because we've found that they almost perfectly mirror each other. Therefore, we can estimate that the early Torah writers were trying to distance themselves from the early Mesopotamian people. Is that correct? We can't know. But, based on the knowledge we currently have, it's certainly seems likely.

And, of course, because bias is unavoidable, read multiple translations. One translator, however reputable, may have missed something that another caught.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the sounds of it, the verse that I chose WAS more accurate in the NIV than it was in the KJV.

By the sounds of it? :biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the Torah, read:
Robert Alter
Everett Fox
Richard Eliot Friedman.

Good.
Good.
Relatively poor.