What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Smoke]

Because the KJV was cited as possibly being the worst of the translations, I would like to come to its defense for one particular reason. Though the Old English tends to be more difficult to read, the Old English style grammar is closer to the Original Hebrew. For example, "thou shalt" and "ye shall" are the plural and singular versions of the more modern "you shall". There is no way to discern the difference in most modern translations.

I prefer the earlier English when we still had a second person singular, too. However, many modern translators don't worry about number. If I recall correctly, the NRSV and other change the singular to the plural in order to be gender-inclusive. For instance, it's not "Blessed is the man who ... " but "Blessed are they who ... "

 

[Smoke]

Here's a few quotes I found from my bookshelf

I'll try to get back to that later when I can give it more time.

 

[mippop]

For instance, it's not "Blessed is the man who ... " but "Blessed are they who ... "

I recognize this verse as being the beginning of Psalm 1. The Hebrew for this is "Ashrei ha-ish...". I would translate it more literally as "Content is the man who...". The addition of neutral gender version tends to underscore my claim that translations are generally little more than editorial commentaries from the translator.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because the KJV was cited as possibly being the worst of the translations, I would like to come to its defense for one particular reason. Though the Old English tends to be more difficult to read, the Old English style grammar is closer to the Original Hebrew. For example, "thou shalt" and "ye shall" are the plural and singular versions of the more modern "you shall". There is no way to discern the difference in most modern translations.

Middle-English, not Old English. ^_^

And it is true that the KJV may be the most "accurate" word for word translation, however it also comes with frequent inaccuracies and inconsistencies in translation.

Otherwise, you make some very good points. I would like to add (once again) the importance of scholarly translations and Study Bibles for in-depth study, as well as numerous translations.

 

[maklelan]

To believe that the ancient Israelites were monolatrous, one would have to be almost completely ignorant of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and of the Tanakh itself.

Vastly mistaken, and I promise you I am ignorant in neither. To begin with, the Hebrew Bible never denies the existence of other gods. The texts from Deuteronomy and Isaiah most often appealed to in opposition to that fact make no such claims, but are rather simple rhetoric meant to reject the relevance or worth of the other gods. That rhetoric is couched in only a couple ways. The texts either say, "I am God, there is no other," or "There is no god beside me," or a conflation of the two (Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 45:5, 21). In Isa 47:8-10 Babyon makes the same claim. Nineveh does it in Zech 2:15. This isn't to say the author is asserting these cities were the only cities in existence, or that the cities thought they were.

The key lies in Isa 40:17, which states that the nations of the world are "as nothing" (כְּאַ֣יִן and מֵאֶ֥פֶס, same as Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 45:5, 21) to him. This doesn't mean they don't exist, but that they're inconsequential. Thus Deut 32:21 has YHWH angry with Israel for chasing after what is "no god." His retribution will be to chastise them with what is "no country" (Assyria). The country isn't non-existent, but in the Israelite worldview it is irrelevant. The texts that seem to deny the existence of other gods do not do so, but simply deny their efficacy or relevance to Israel. They are not to be worshipped. See Michael Heiser's treatment here.

That the Hebrew Bible in numerous places mentions other gods as existing is absolutely undeniable. A few more important examples will suffice. The original text of Deut 32:8 states that El Elyon divied up the nations to the "sons of Bull El" (see Jan Joosten, "A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8," Vetus Testamentum 57 [3007]: 548-55, for why this reconstruction is preferable to the more common "Sons of God"). Then verse 43 valls upon these gods to worship YHWH. They also participate in the divine council and are stewards over the several nations of the earth. See Gen 6:2; Exod 15:11; Job 1:6; Ps 29:1; 82; 89:7; 95:3. None of these texts can be asserted to reference angels or rulers.

 

[maklelan]

Middle-English, not Old English. ^_^

Actually it's Early Modern English. Middle English runs until the 15th century. KJV was executed in the 17th century.

And it is true that the KJV may be the most "accurate" word for word translation, however it also comes with frequent inaccuracies and inconsistencies in translation.

It's not even close to the most accurate word for word translation, the use of second person plural pronouns and conjugations notwithstanding.

Otherwise, you make some very good points. I would like to add (once again) the importance of scholarly translations and Study Bibles for in-depth study, as well as numerous translations.

I think learning the languages is the best way to study the Bible in depth. Without that knowledge you're always working with second-hand information, committing to interpretations based on whose scholarship you prefer to trust rather than what you can discern personally.

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually it's Early Modern English. Middle English runs until the 15th century. KJV was executed in the 17th century.

Okay, so it's kind of a "transitional" English.

It's not even close to the most accurate word for word translation, the use of second person plural pronouns and conjugations notwithstanding.

I'm mostly basing this statement on Robert Alter's complaints on modern translations in the introduction to his translation of the Torah.

I think learning the languages is the best way to study the Bible in depth. Without that knowledge you're always working with second-hand information, committing to interpretations based on whose scholarship you prefer to trust rather than what you can discern personally.

I agree. The problem is that it takes a long time to learn these old languages. It's good, therefore, to have something to go off of in the meantime.

 

[gnostic]

Because the KJV was cited as possibly being the worst of the translations, I would like to come to its defense for one particular reason. Though the Old English tends to be more difficult to read, the Old English style grammar is closer to the Original Hebrew. For example, "thou shalt" and "ye shall" are the plural and singular versions of the more modern "you shall". There is no way to discern the difference in most modern translations.

The KJV is written in Middle English, not Old English. If it was written in Old English, then you would need a translation from Old English to Modern English.

Oops!

Riverwolf has already cover that.

Middle-English, not Old English. ^_^

:sorry1: riverwolf.

 

[Smoke]

Just a note:

Thou and thee are singular.

You and ye are plural.

 

[Oberon]

Just a note:

Thou and thee are singular.

You and ye are plural.

Additionally, in middle english and old english the "th" of "thee" and "thou" was usually a thorn.

 

[Muffled]

...You think jesus told you which one to use?

I don't think so, I know so. As it is with the Bible nothing authenticates his Word better than fulfilled prophecy and I have experienced it.

 

[McBell]

I don't think so, I know so. As it is with the Bible nothing authenticates his Word better than fulfilled prophecy and I have experienced it.

I don't think you know either, but tis neither here nor there.
Self fulfilling prophesy being fulfilled does not impress me none.
Nor does making a "prediction" after the fact.
But hey, whatever helps you ratify your beliefs, right?

 

[Muffled]

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).

An example would be the case of Mary's virgin conception, where Matthew 1:23 quote from Isaiah 7:14.

The Christians are adamant that this has to do with Mary being a "virgin", who conceived without intercourse.

However, Matthew's (and other NT authors) frequently used the Septuagint (Greek Koine translation of the Jewish bible), which used the word parthenos, or παρθένος, hence "virgin".

But if you were reading from the Hebrew texts, Isaiah used the word עלמה, almah, meaning "young woman", which don't necessarily mean "virgin".

No, I think Christians are just likely to be biased, probably more so, when interpreting the Hebrew half (OT) of the scriptures, by pushing Christian ideas/thinking into Jewish scriptures.

But the Christians are not alone in this.

The Muslims do the same thing, like the "new prophet" as being Muhammad in the OT Deuteronomy 18:18-20, or with the Holy Spirit, or the "Comforter", being identified with...again, Muhammad, in the NT John 14:15-31.

Each Abrahamic off-shoot religions are trying to push their ideas, simply because they wished to validate their own religions with older religion (ie Judaism), thereby placing Christian or Muslim ideas into Hebrew scriptures. Both Christianity and Islam have the same insane views that their respective religions to be the "only true religion".

That to me is just basic Religious Propaganda 101.

I don't have a problem with the concept of using Jewish thought as a context as long as it is pre-Christian era thought. After that Jewish thought is colored by the spirit of anti-christ.

The NT has a Jewish context up until the expansion of the church into Gentile lands. Even then Paul's writing comes from years of Judaic study.

The context supports a Messianic prophecy. Even though the text doesn't use the word for virgin, it would take a great stretch of imagination to perceive of a young Jewish girl being anything but a virgin and in a Messianic context this would even be more so. However I would agree that the prophecy as it reads does not inform the reader exactly the nature of the virgin birth other than to call it a sign. Young girls have babies al the time would those thousands be a sign or would they be too ambiguous to signify anything?

Translation is supposed to take into account the context in order to convey the meaning. Since the virgin birth had fulfilled the prophecy it became the context. If the Jewish version keeps it as "young girl," I don't see that as a biased translation because the Messianic fulfillment remains intact. Jewish interpretation of the text that it doesn't include the possibility of a virgin is a biased interpretation.

I have never found a Muslim apology for those interpretations that is supported by the context.

 

[Muffled]

The most judicious Enlgish translation by far is the NRSV, not only because it is not based exclusively on a diplomatic text of MT, but because it also overcomes a good portion of the dogmatic readings of othe translations (although many remain). I prefer to translate the texts myself and only use the English when I need to quickly cover larger portions of text.

I find the RSV although a reasonably good translation was fraught with a multitude of problematic language. Whether the new version has addressed the problems, I can't say not having read it.

 

[Muffled]

I use the JST - Joseph Smith Translation. Only a prophet can sort out the mess left by the dark ages.

I have never seen any evidence that JS was a prophet. I have never read the JST because Latter Day Saints encourage the reading of the book of Mormon and not the JST.

 

[Humanistheart]

I don't think so, I know so. As it is with the Bible nothing authenticates his Word better than fulfilled prophecy and I have experienced it.

Oh and what fulfilled prophecy would that be? As far as I'm aware jesus did not fulfill one messianic prophecy, and his own prophicies have yet to come true.

 

[Humanistheart]

I have never seen any evidence that JS was a prophet. I have never read the JST because Latter Day Saints encourage the reading of the book of Mormon and not the JST.

I agree, nothing from J Smith can be concidered valid. He was proven a con-artist decades ago.

 

[McBell]

I agree, nothing from J Smith can be concidered valid. He was proven a con-artist decades ago.

So as not to derail this thread with it, i have created another thread asking for the proof of which you speak:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...seph-smith-proven-con-artist.html#post1629560
​

 

[Willamena]

I was raised on the NKJ version. I was surprised when the Head of the Religious Studies program at my college (a lifelong christian and PhD in said topic) said that the NIV version is probably the most accurate translation of the bible in current use, and the King James version is by a wide margin the least accurate. There are numerous reasons given to support both conclusions, that I'm sure if this get's responded to people will touch on.

But anyway, I cannot speak or read any of the languages that the earliest copies of the bible we have are written in; I cannot confirm this one way or the other. So what version do you all think is the most accurate? What is your reasoning behind your answer?

Personally, though I am not religious and stay out of Bible discussions and the like, I like the New King James version. I usually poke around through different versions to see if I can garner what's being said in a text, and this one usually makes my ears perk.

Can't speak to "accuracy", though.

 

[monalee]

hi.. I like KJV and NKJV best