what bible is closest to original???

Question

ive always went by the king james bible and also the niv(new international bible.
i saw something on line about new kjv being bad/counterfiet??
man has changed alot of our bible?
did jesus ever write anything in his own words?
if so where??
jesus is gods son, god is jesus but yet seperate, correct?
he was crucified, yes.
and paul didnt make this up to lead ppl some way right??
help me as i want to do GODS will.
what is not accurate in kjv??
hurry iam waiting, give me links etc. no atheists plezzzz.
thsi is serious matter of the soul!!!! not funny.

Answer 1

New World Translation.

to test it's reliability, take your KJV, and your Strong's Exhautive Concordance, check any verses you have questions about, look up the words in the KJV, then look up the original words and definitions using the Strong's.
You will find that the NWT, is the best trans available today!

({:-[/]

Answer 2

This is a really good question, and many people have been trying to answer it. I have read a lot about the different critiques that people have of various translations, and they range from the KJV being the only accurate Bible for the English speaking world, to positions that reject all Bibles because they are some how all tainted.

The problem is that we don't have good translations; the problem is that we don't have the original manuscripts, but rather a plethora of copies of manuscripts. The manuscripts do agree 98% of the time in both the Old and New Testaments. People will often reject certain texts because they disagree with the texts that they deem to be the best texts. I don't think this is fair, because the reality is that we don't know what the original texts said. What Bible scholars try and do though is take the texts we have and attempt to reconstruct what the original manuscripts might have said based on the texts. This field of study is called textual criticism.

In addition to that, translating the texts is difficult. Languages aren't coded--this means that you can't just simply replace words from one language with another and have a translations. Every language is different, and has its own caveats. Because of this, there are many approaches to translation. Some approaches try and do as close to a one to one translation as they can, while others attempt to understand the authors intent and rewrite the message of a passage in contemporary language. There are some mitigated approaches that try to honor the original languages without sacrificing readability. Because there are so many approaches, we end up with a lot of translations.

I personally like to read the Bible from a translation that most closely resembles the original language, so I use the NASB and NIV. The NASB is more one for one than the NIV, but the NIV is more readable in my opinion. But I do use other translations as well. At the moment, I am learning to read Greek and Hebrew, so hopefully before too long, I will be able to read the Bible in its original languages.

Answer 3

No one, honey, really wrote the bible. It is a collection of various writings that have been put together, changed, added to and subtracted from for religious or political reasons. The King James version was a variation changed during the reign of James, just after the death of Elisabeth I in England (early 1600'). If you wish to know more, google Bible+history. You should come up with all sorts of interesting items and articles. Also check out Discover.com for some great dvds or videos on bible history. Their stuff is really quite good, well written and extremely interesting. All of these works that went into the bible suffered translation problems. For example, if you translate things from Aramaic (the language jesus spoke) into Greek, then Latin, Coptic Old English, Middle English, and modern English errors will occur. The printing press was not even invented until the !400's, and scribes who copies by hand, often put their own twist on letters, that were later just guessed at. (some languages had no subject, predicate, nor individual words. The common example is "heisnowhere" which can be separated into "he is now here", or "he is no where" 600 years ago, this wasn't much of a problem, since the only people who could read were priests -- the common person could not read or write their own language until after the press was invented -- they couldn't afford a book! Good luck in your search. You'll have fun.

Answer 4

No, Jesus did not write anything in his own words, ever, which is part of the problem. And if he did, you couldn't read it - it would be in hebrew. The King James bible is actually very good, the NIV not so much (it's more modern.) Yes, Jesus is God's son but also God, the holy trinity with the Holy Spirit. Yes, he was crucified. No, Paul didn't make it up! If you want to read a really great book on apologetics, I love one called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler and Turek. Why would Paul have made it up? It only got him persecution. Don't worry, the bible isn't misleading you. Just pray about it and He'll help you translate. Honestly, the specific doctrines don't matter that much as long as you have the general idea - God made you, you sinned, he loves you anyway, Jesus came to save you, if you love him he will and you can go to heaven. The rest is just details. If you have specific questions I may be able to help, I've researched apologetics a lot.

Answer 5

Almost all bibles have "the truth", granted with some bibles you have to dig deeper and harder to find it, but it will be there. This can be due to the religious beliefs of the translators,

or as

Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:

“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. . . . to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”


Please note what these language experts have said, about a specific translation:

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible: King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation. The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:
John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Also explored are passages involving "prostration" or "worship," gendered language, the "holy spirit," and the use of "Jehovah." Two hundred pages in all offering my most detailed examination of the issues and pressures involved in Bible translation. If you've found my comments, observations, and answers instructive or challenging in the past, now's your chance to get the complete picture.”
Thank you, and happy reading!
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

Answer 6

Hi Candy Have been teaching the Binle for 35 years and am familiar with many transaltions of the Bible and from research done over the years and a panel of Bible experts in History , archeology, Lexicography and related fields they were asked to rate the current translations available today as to accuracy,ease of reading and how losely they convey the meaning of the original writers of the Bible and according to this panel f experts the New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures was voted the Best in the World Todayfor meeting theese criteria hope this helps you Gorbalizer

Answer 7

No existing Bible is close to the original since the 'original' was all spoken. Google the 'Gospel of Q' and 'Burton Mack' if you want the earliest written 'Bible.' It is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. I forget where it is but it is an excellent translation and commentary on the earliest written works that would become Christianity along with a time line of what was written when.

If you want an book on how the Bible was re-written by later writers see 'James the Brother of Jesus' by Robert Eisenman. This is a long and scholarly book but it is thorough.

Answer 8

There is nothing wrong at all with the King James Version.
It does have one particular drawback however.
You see, it was written a few hundred years ago.
Language is always changing.
Therefore, what was clear and precise back then, may be difficult to understand today.
Take 'Shakespeare' for example. We have to read a line 2 or 3 times today before getting the sense of it.
So, although nothing is wrong with KJV, a more modern translation has advantages.

Answer 9

If you are REALLY serious about learning the true bible, then there is no way around it, you need to learn biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek. Old Testament is Hebrew, New Testament is Greek. People argue and argue over translations, but you MUST learn it yourself in the original languages. There are no links for this, it requires classes and years of dedicated study. As far as the other questions you're asking, you can't find a quick answer. Go to classes. Talk to people. Get off the internet and go to a theology school.

Answer 10

Get yourself The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures from Jehovah's Witnesses near you. Jewish Bible Scholars clain the NWT is the closest translation to the meaning of the original scrolls. It also puts God's personal name Jehovah back in the Scriptures where it belongs in nearly 7000 places. How can you be considered God's friend like Abraham if you don't even know or use his Name, I sur your friends call you by your name and you call them by theirs.