Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Which Bible is Most Accurate?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but...Which version of the Bible is the most accurate, i.e., the most in line with what was actually intended to be said.

Ken Howell's post about how the KJV changed "baptism," among other things, got me thinking. King James Version is the one I grew up with, as a Lutheran. If there's a more accurate and correct version, I'd like to get one.

I have heard other people say that there are some problems with the KJV. Of course, the NIV and other versions have their own issues.

Tom Cruise and John Travolta say so

It's best to chose the Bible that supports the conclusions you've already reached. That Bible is the most "accurate" Bible of them all.

King James Version is the only one i have ever took the time to read and it gets my vote, but what do i know, I'm only the 1000 lb Gorilla in the room

Try a NAS. Supposed to be a good translation into modern English.

It is clear and easy to read. I love mine.

Better Question: Which Heart is most pure?

The pure heart will follow the guidance of God from ANY translation.

The small Heart will use ANY translation to raise himself above others.

BMT

Most accurate?

The NIV and the New Standard Revised are the two I go to when studying the Bible. I also was brought up with the KJV, but the other two were composed after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other, very important ancient documents, so I feel that they have a clearer translation of the Word.

As Ken had pointed out, there are some changes between the KJV and the others, and differences between the NIV and the NSR, and some words in ancient Greek cannot be simply translated, so the definitions are up to discussion.

That's my view.

Ed

True statement.

I like the NKJV myself, though I am not sure it is the "Most Accurate."

Now , ED , everybody knows that the best one is the heaviest one since it will most often be used as a club to beat other believers with.

Maybe that's why publishers put out those miniature New Testaments, so we can throw them at others and stay out of reach of them swinging their Bibles?

Ed

I won't flame you, but the answer to your question depends on what "accuracy" means. "Accurate" is not always "the most in line with what was actually intended to be said." By "accuracy," people usually mean word-for-word accuracy -- one word in Greek or Hebrew equals one word in English. Unfortunately, that's not possible because sometimes an equal word turns out to be a phrase. Verb tenses create another challenge. The Greek has tenses that we don't have in English. The modern translation that comes closest to word-for-word translation is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). That may be what you're looking for.

However, in striving for strict accuracy, sometimes the translators had to sacrifice readability -- makes the reader say "Huh?" So, the NASB sometimes doesn't read smoothly. It's not the best translation for reading aloud.

Every modern English translation has a rationale. For example, the New International Version (NIV) attempted to satisfy the needs of every English speaking country -- the USA, England, Australia, South Africa, etc. Hence, the name New International Version. However, each country has its own idiosyncrasies, so the NIV was good for all but perfect for none. It does read very smoothly, and is a good one for reading aloud.

You ask a question that only someone speaking English would ask. If you spoke Chinese or Russian, you wouldn't ask that question because you'd likely have just one choice in your language. So, my advice isn't to look for strict accuracy -- it's to read a few passages of your choosing and see which one you find easiest and most understandable. You can do that for free at www.biblegateway.com. Go there and read something from St. Paul (Romans 1), something from the Gospels (Matthew 5-7), and something from the Old Testament (the Joseph story), or any passages you like, and see what you find most satisfying, ow what speaks most clearly to you.

The important thing is that we have many good translations to choose from: NASB, NIV, English Standard Version, New King James Version, and others. On the essentials of the faith, these will not lead a person astray. These are translations, as opposed to paraphrases (such as The Message and The Living Bible.)

The Bible was written in the language of the people. The Greek of the New Testament was koin�, or "common Greek," so my view is that it should be read in common English.

That's a beginning, but should be enough to answer your question. Others may want to add more.

Steve

Yep.

As usual, your answer shows your ignorance -- unless you are simply offering a joking answer to a serious question.

That would be true only if a group of translators from a single denomination or a single Christian tradition (Calvinists, Arminians, Pentecostals, etc.) got together to make a translation. There are a few of those, but none from those groups and none that are common.

The fact is that people from virtually all denominations and all traditions use many, many translations -- and the leaders don't look for one that supports their own particular view.

Occasionally a local church will for some reason adopt an "official" translation for themselves (in every case I know of it's the KJV), but I know of no denomination that has adopted or even recommends any specific translation.

Steve

Undoubtedly it is the King James version.

The reason for its accuracy has to do with the politics and religious of early 17th England. James was a new king, and a foreigner. Not only was he a foreigner, he was a native of one of England's oldest and most traditional enemies. So, his position on the throne was somewhat precarious simply because of that. Secondly, England was by that time staunchly protestant and James' mother had been Mary Queen of Scots who was generally regarded as a Catholic martyr. And though, James had been an infant when she died and had been raised strictly protestant in the Kirk of Scotland, it was said that he was somewhat tolerant of Catholics.

Then of course, in England there were splits withing the English church of the High Church Anglicans, the Low Church Anglicans, and the more or less fundamentalist Puritans.

But one thing that everyone was more or less in favor of and agreed would help unite the nation and give James authority was an English translation of the Bible. The only other widespread English translation was regarded by all as being inaccurate and unsatisfactory.

So, James created a commission to create the new English translation. But considering that he was straddling the political fence on keeping all of these different factions together, he couldn't give any faction ascendency on the commission. Therefore, he appointed some from all of the different factions to the commission. And because they all had differing agendas and different viewpoints on the Scripture, the only way they could agree and fulfill the royal commission to create a new Bible was to agree to translate AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE and avoid slanting a translation towards any particular viewpoint.

So, the King James version is nearly unique amongst modern translations in that virtually any translation done since then has been done by one group or another and all groups, being human, have agendas and these agendas come through in the translations.

Have you ever looked at the names and backgrounds of the translators of any modern translation? These groups were put together precisely to prevent any theological agenda. I have personally discussed this with translation scholars whose views were rejected for that exact reason. So the KJV is not unique in that way.

Do you realize that the textual resources used by modern translations far exceed the reliability of the Textus Receptus, which is the basis for the KJV?

Are you aware that language changes over a period of 500 years -- that word meanings have changed since 1611? To say "Suffer the little children to come to me" doesn't say today what it said in 1611.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of the KJV. It will not mislead on any important point. But people today do not speak and don't readily understand the King's English. I'm left wondering why the Bible shouldn't be accessible in modern English... and how many centuries should go by before the KJV becomes obsolete... and if we expect people who don't speak English to learn English and then get trained in the King's English in order to have access to the Bible.

We who speak English have better access to the Word of God than any people in history. The tragedy is that most of us take it for granted and don't read it in any English translation.

Steve

Sort of the "snipers" of the bible world?

You gotta duct tape 'em shut if you want "penetration" .

If you understand English it has not changed. "Allow or let the little children to come to me" would be my immediate translation of that passage without ever even looking it up.

And don't get caught up in changes of language. The KJV is probably the most accurate translation. The fact that modern usage of language is different now than it was in the 17th century does not lesson the accuracy of the translation, it just makes it harder to understand for the modern reader...or at least the unschooled one.

To you and I yes. To a new believer reading for the first time, not so much.