What are some other trustworthy Holy Bible translations?

Question

I currently use the King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV) study with.

(I also read "The Message", but not without one of the two previously mentioned Bibles.)

Please, only serious answers. No point hoarding for the sake of it. This is a serious question.

Answer 1

Please allow me to inform you that the KJV is the ONLY Infallible English translation of God's Word. This is plainly evident by the vast amount of information that is available to defend that fact...not just from the sources I will list, but there have been many books written about it as well. I suggest picking up a copy of "Final Authority" by William P. Grady.

I'll list a few things from my sources for you :-D (by the way, I am an Independent Baptist, and my sources are from Independent Baptist websites)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts about Westcott and Hort

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions:

1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!

2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.

3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.

4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.

5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.

6. Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.

7. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.

8. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.

9. Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.

10. Hort refused to believe in angels.

11. Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.

12. Hort confessed that he hated democracy in all it's forms.

13. Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.

14. While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead (necromancy).

15. The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee.

16. The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.

17. The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.

QUESTION: Does this sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.

4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.

5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.
-------------------------------------------------

If you are interested, please check my sources...I believe you will find it interesting.

Answer 2

I love your question. I have many favorite translations of the Bible. I would recommend the New American Standard Bible (NASB). The English Standard Version (ESV). And the New King James Version. (NKJV) Those three are my favorites in no particular order. I like the NIV, but have found the best study bibles are released mainly in NKJV. Fortunately two of my favorite study bibles have been released in other translations. (I love the MacArthur Study Bible). Others you'll see on the shelves include New Living Translation (NLT). Today's New International Version (TNIV).

If you're used to the King James, I would imagine that going with either the NASB or the ESV or perhaps the Revised Standard Version (RSV) would be easier than going with one of the others.

Answer 3

A good option is study Bibles with three or four versions in one - you can read over each translation to get a better idea of what the book says. They usually have KJV, NIV, American Standard, and some others. There is also the New American Standard version you could try.

Answer 4

there are some other commonly used versions like the American Standard Version or the New King James Version... i would suggest just going to a local Christian bookstore and looking at what they have. the sales people would probably be of good help too. i personally mainly use the NIV but i think it is good to have other versions so you can compare different versions if a verse is hard to understand.

Answer 5

I'm a big fan of the NASB (New American Standard Bible). Mine has the fun Hebrew and Greek dictionaries in the back so I can what other definitions there are for certain words. A really useful tool is Crosswalk (http://crosswalk.com/). You can search by verse and go to any translation you want. From there you can click on certain words and see the original Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.

If you're looking for "accurate" translations, the best thing to do is get some dictionaries and figure it out for yourself. It'll really increase your own understanding of each verse.

Answer 6

For the New Testament, mostly all the books are unanimous. Most scholars have disputes about the Old Testament, and my belief on that is, rely on the books in their original Hebrew, or a Hebrew version translated to English. It's closer to the source.

Answer 7

i could no longer have faith my ears while on the Jeopardy interest instruct the question grew to become into asked: What grew to become into the main precise Bible used international extensive? answer: "the hot international Translation" from the Watchtower Society. WOW!

Answer 8

The Wycliffe and New American Bible are reliable