What is the most accurate Bible translation?

[tsr]

Part of the confusion for why there are so many translations of the Bible comes from the fact that the Bible wasn’t originally written in English.

Instead, the original translations of the Bible was written in mostly Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and koine Greek for the New Testament.

Above is a Bible translation chart that is a visual representation regarding the Bible translation spectrum.

To the left side of the chart, you’ll find the Bible translations that are translated as word-for-word translations.

To the right side of the chart, you’ll find the Bible translations that are translated as thought-for-thought translations.

 

[Mungo]

Two things
1. Where would you say the RSV is on that chart?

2. If you don't know about already this is interesting about the KJV & other versions - Acquaintance with the original texts... (Copyright 1997 Robert Nguyen Cramer)

 

[Enoch111]

Above is a Bible translation chart that is a visual representation regarding the Bible translation spectrum.

This chart does not distinguish between translations based upon the Received Text and those based upon the Critical Text. And that is a very important consideration. Only the KJV is based upon the Received Text (Textus Receptus) hence it differs from all the other in hundreds of important passages.

At the same time, only a word-for-word translation (as much as is possible) can be accepted as a genuine translation, since the words themselves are important (Mt 4:4). A slight change can change the meaning of a verse (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:16, where the KJV has "GOD" and none of the others do). The Unitarian who was on the original revision committee of the Church of England was delighted with this change. The omission of 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 from modern versions are also critical changes to doctrine.

 

[Enoch111]

Where would you say the RSV is on that chart?

The RSV was derived from the RV (English Revised Version) and is the same as (or similar to) the ESV.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Part of the confusion for why there are so many translations of the Bible comes from the fact that the Bible wasn’t originally written in English.

Instead, the original translations of the Bible was written in mostly Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and koine Greek for the New Testament.

Above is a Bible translation chart that is a visual representation regarding the Bible translation spectrum.

To the left side of the chart, you’ll find the Bible translations that are translated as word-for-word translations.

To the right side of the chart, you’ll find the Bible translations that are translated as thought-for-thought translations.

The most accurate is Kittel's 10 volume New Testament and Kiel and Delitsczh 10 volume OT Commentary. They both delve deeply inot the nuances of the languages.
But for simple translation? KJV and NASB are best. KJV is just different for modern English readers with its Elizabethian Engloish.

 

[Mungo]

This chart does not distinguish between translations based upon the Received Text and those based upon the Critical Text. And that is a very important consideration. Only the KJV is based upon the Received Text (Textus Receptus) hence it differs from all the other in hundreds of important passages.

At the same time, only a word-for-word translation (as much as is possible) can be accepted as a genuine translation, since the words themselves are important (Mt 4:4). A slight change can change the meaning of a verse (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:16, where the KJV has "GOD" and none of the others do). The Unitarian who was on the original revision committee of the Church of England was delighted with this change. The omission of 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 from modern versions are also critical changes to doctrine.

I know for some Christians the KJV is the perfect English translation but it is based on a few very late texts. The link I gave goes into that. If you want to think the KJV & textus receptus are the only viable texts I'm not going to waste time arguing.

The RSV was derived from the RV (English Revised Version) and is the same as (or similar to) the ESV.

Thanks

 

[amadeus]

But then again whichever Bible a person decides to and actually does use, is only as good as that which the Holy Spirit writes in his heart... right?

I used to translate a lot of documents [German, Spanish, English], so I know a little about the problems of translators and the caution or trust with which the work of any translator should be approached. But me also being a man with my flaws and biases, why should you believe me. I translated, but never Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew so what then...?

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Matt 5:6 [KJV]

"Happy those hungering and thirsting for righteousness -- because they shall be filled." Matt 5:6 [Young]

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be completely satisfied." Matt 5:6 [Weymouth]

"The meek and lowly are fortunate! for the whole world belongs to them" Matt 5:6 [Living Bible]

If we were hungry, really hungry as well as being thirsty, really thirsty, for the righteousness [What is that ? Is it manna?] of God, do you suppose that God would withhold from us what He has for us because we went for some reason with a less accurate [according to which expert?] Bible? Who but God could decide such a thing and definitely be correct [most accurate]? How about a good translator who is never makes mistakes and is never subject to any of his own biases? Which flawlessly trustworthy man is that? Not me!

Only one version shown for the following one. [chosen simply because it is the one I normally use for English...

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 [KJV]

Is Jesus the Bible? Which one?

 

[Jostler]

I'm using the NKJV and the NASB more often than any other translations...both of those are good. So are others. There is enough light in just about any of them to guide an honest, seeking heart into a personal encounter with Jesus.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Part of the confusion for why there are so many translations of the Bible comes from the fact that the Bible wasn’t originally written in English.

Instead, the original translations of the Bible was written in mostly Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and koine Greek for the New Testament.

Above is a Bible translation chart that is a visual representation regarding the Bible translation spectrum.

To the left side of the chart, you’ll find the Bible translations that are translated as word-for-word translations.

To the right side of the chart, you’ll find the Bible translations that are translated as thought-for-thought translations.

I do not know if it can be proven sir, but in my opinion the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is. An authoritative source said so as well, but that is still not proof.