bible versions-which one?

Question

which is the best version of the bible? is there really any as accurate as the very first, back in the daaays ? i guess what im getting at is are any changed around from what they first used or is it only the translation to a certain language that changed?

Answer 1

It helps to read many different versions to see the different ways that people have translated something, and get some idea of the different possible meanings. You can now do this easily with parallel computer bibles, such as
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/
which allows you to search and display texts in multiple versions.

As i like fairly literal translations, i personally like the English Standard Version, it does a very good job in that department.

Better yet, take the trouble to learn Biblical Hebrew and Greek, it wll open you eyes to a lot of nuances and shades of meaning that get lost in translation, even if you do not have a perfect grasp of the language. I would suggest starting with Hebrew as its easier to learn than Greek, more of the Bible is written in it, and even with the Greek parts a Hebrew mindset lies behind them.

Answer 2

For seminary college students it's the KJV 1611. Note: You can get a KJV that's not a 1611. Make sure it is KJV 1611.

However, I use both, and ther other is "Word in Life Study Bible" as I like the commentary and history. Both have made a difference for me.

It has helped with some translation with words like Believe and Love. For example, there are 5 different meanings for the word love. The Greeks used 5 different words to describe the exact word for Love that was meant.

If I may, visit a book store and take a look at different Bibles. What works for me might not work for you.

I hope this helps

Answer 3

There is no "best" translaltion. All have strengths and weaknesses.

Your best bet is to get an interlinear translation which shows the original greek or Hebrew text translated literally, then if you have a question about the way a certain scripture is translated, you can see the "original" and compare it to different translations.

I did that and found out, for example, that in Romans 10:13 the Greek says that he who calls on the Lord will be saved but in the New World Translation "lord" is translated as "Jehovah". Although I agree that one must call on Jehovah God to be saved, I believe the context is speaking about Jesus in that verse. In any case, the original word is 'lord', not Jehovah.

I mention this because I know there are people on YA who will sing the praises of the New World Translation and hide its flaws. In the interest of fairness, I like the NWT in other ways.

Answer 4

I prefer my parallel Bible with the Amplified and King James Version. I suggest you get a Strong's Concordance to review the original meaning of the translated English words. This may help you if you want the best or clearest meaning. For example, the word World in the Bible can mean our planet or age/time in the original Greek/Hebrew.

Answer 5

I know this sounds tough, but if you REALLY want the best translation, learn Koine Greek and read the actual manuscripts. That's what I do.

Good translations are NKJV, KJV, ESV, NASB.

STAY AWAY from paraphrases, they do not stay true to the text.

But MOST importantly stay away from the New World Translation (NWT) it is a cultic, biased, unproper translation from men who don't know Greek and go against the rules of Greek grammar to fit their heretical views. VERY BAD. ANY Greek scholar will tell you it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Jason BeDuhn is not a creditable Greek scholar. He is a religious studies prof. and is not dedicated to the Greek language
and is a Manichaeist

Answer 6

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

====edit ====

Okay how about. John 1:1

The Translator's New Testament says:

"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos(God)so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine.'"

Vincent Taylor says:

"Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God? Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118.

An Exegetical Grammer Of The Greek New Testament, William D Chamberlain

"The primary function of the article is to make something definite. It may point out something new to the discussion, or something already mentioned.

"Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God."

(William D.Chamberlain was professor of New Testament language and literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. It is a text book on Greek grammar that has been recommended by Bruce Metzger.)


The above statements agree with the footnote of the NAB at John 1:1

"Jehovah's Witnesses: NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines of this cult...even though a few abberrations can be found. ....Some have to condemn out of hand any version made by Jehovah's Witnesses.....because they must be full of heresies.....It is true that there are some heretical doctrines to be found in NWT...., but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected (I have looked!) does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'.-How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, A.S.Duthie. pp. 30, 216.

0.1% means for every 1000 words, one word is incorrect

Based on the above quotes about John 1:1, then that percentage of error is even less.

Answer 7

The King James Version is the best version. Because when the Bible was found King James wanted to know what it said so he had interpreters interpret the Bible WORD-FOR-WORD!!!!

Answer 8

If you believe that the bible is the word of God then they are all the same.God had the bible penned for us,so other than misinterpretation the bible is ,has been and will continue to be the same.

Answer 9

The Complete Jewish Bible

Answer 10

KJV

For English speaking readers.

Time tested and approved, plus many resources to help.