Is there an updated Bible somewhere?

Question

The Bible that I come across the most is the King James Version of the Bible. That was made popular because it was the first translation into English. It was translated into Old English because that was the common language of the time. Why doesn't anyone go back to the original scripts that he translated and retranslate them into present day English? Shouldn't that replace the KJV Bible? Is there any other reason to retain the KJV Bible that I don't know about? It seems to me that people would be less confused about what the Bible actually says (different interpretations and whatnot) if someone would just republish the Bible using a language that most people understand. I don't just mean English either. Present day Spanish, English, Swedish, Chinese, African Bush Tribe, etc.

A lot of people are talking about updated versions of the KJV Bible. That could very obviously lead to problems because something that they translated a certain way could be translated a different way into an updated version of the Bible leaving you with something that's completely different. I'm talking about someone retranslating the original scripts into modern day English. Not updating the KJV Bible.

Answer 1

For honesty and accuracy I perfer the
NWT, Why?

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

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

This does not mean I use only the NWT, but the more I compare it to other translations and Strong's, the more I've come to appreciate the accuracy of this bible.

Answer 2

The King James was NOT the first English translation of the Bible, nor was it translated into "Old English" (aka Anglo-Saxon). John Wycliff translated the Vulgate into Middle English over a hundred years earlier. The Tyndale and Geneva versions, and several others, were produced before the King James. And the KJV is actually considered Modern English by linguists.

The source document for KJV and other translations was not all that original. It was a compilation in Greek by Erasmus Desiderius from several partial Greek manuscripts dating from the 10th Century. It was dubbed the "Textus Receptus". Since then, older manuscripts with slightly different renderings have come to light and several translations have been made from them. Defenders of King James claim the older manuscripts are defective, and point to the large number of later texts. Defenders of the older texts disagree with them.

If you're just looking for an update of that particular translation, the New King James Version has been around for at least 20 years, and it is essentially what you are looking for. They did go back to the Textus Receptus. But there are dozens of current day English translations. Just go to the religion section of an ordinary bookstore, or a public library.

Answer 3

There are lots of new Bibles on the market today. They have direct, word for word translations and others that translate the ideas. Try the New International Version (NIV), The Message, The New King James Version, God's Word For Your Every Need, The Amplified Bible, The Good News Bible, The New Living Translation... etc. And yes, they have also translated it into other languages.

If you go to www.e-sword.net, you can download software that has many of these Bibles and other books that can help you in your studies,
Most places keep the King James version because of tradition. It was and still is the most popular version and helps to keep order in services.

I agree with you, the more translations you have, the more accurately you can see what the original was saying. I admire your hunger for the Word of God. It won't go unrewarded.

Answer 4

Look up the Third Milennium Bible on Amazon. It's awesome and I use it for study. It is not a new translation at all, but an accurate updating of the 1611 KJV. The beauty of the king's english of the time was preserved, but modern translations are provided for now obsolete words. It is not PC and an easier read b/c the layout is just like a book and not in columns. The words of Jesus are in italics and there are many other great features. Plus, I know the man who (along with a group of others) spent 20 years compiling it. BTW: If you use a concordance, it does not matter at all if a few words have been updated, since you can look up the corresponding Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek word for meaning.

Answer 5

There is at least in Sweden and I'm sure other countries. The third and latest Swedish translation was officially published in year 2000. It is not an updated version of the previous translation from 1917, but it is altogether new. It is a text critical edition with many notes. More than 100 scholars - philological, theological, archaeological, literary, historical and other experts - worked on it for more than 25 years.

I don't know if this Wikipedia article is correct and comprehensive, but here is it anywat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

Answer 6

Is there an updated Bible somewhere?

NOPE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Why doesn't anyone go back to the original scripts that he translated and retranslate them into present day English?"

Buy a N KJV Bible.
It should be just about exactly what you want.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

"Is there any other reason to retain the KJV Bible that I don't know about? "

Yes indeed! ENGLISH language study.
Only 25 words need to be "learned" to follow it's glorious verbiage!
Most Scholars still TREASURE the KJV!

~~~~~~~~~~~

Answer 7

The KJV is the closest and most accurate version of the bible written from the original Hebrew text. Most all other translations are not as accurate because they substitute words that have different meanings from the original (KJV) which would make other translations alot less accurate, words and/or verses are omitted in other translations which would distort the true meaning of the bible and other translations other than the KJV are NOT written from the original text, which would make them inaccurate.

Answer 8

Why wouldn't sex before marriage not apply today if you are a Christian? Marriage is supposed to be sacred bond. Why would you want to have sex before marriage - why would you want to share yourself, give the most intimate gift you can give someone before you find your spouse. A lot of women's role in the OT is misunderstood. Women had a more honored role then what we are taught. I remember in Catholic school that I was taught that Jewish women had no rights, no recourse no nothing. In fact they had the right to divorce, own land, and have their own money. They had the right not to be abused, and were to be respected. They were considered to be born wise. I can't say the same for the NT - but anyways, the roles of women in the OT are a lot different then we understand them to be today. We tend to see the Law as almost a punishment and women in the roles of servants. When in reality women held high positions, could read and write, and made lasting impacts on their faith. Read Proverbs 31 - it talks about a good woman and wife. That is what a bibical woman was supposed to be like.

Answer 9

I found the Douay Rheim Bible to be the best one to understand and read. It also has the 7 cannonized books that are removed from the King James.



Latin Vulgate
Douay-Rheims Bible
http://www.drbo.org/

.

Answer 10

There is a version called "The Message" that is very good. Also the New International Version can be very readable.