I don't know what's the most accurate but I do know that the King James Version isn't accurate. King James and his translators were anti catholic and translated the bible with their set of beliefs in mind. They completely omitted several books from the bible such as the books of Maccabees (which are kind of important) because they supported the Catholic idea of Purgatory.
There's no way possible that the King James Version could be translated word for word because the only way to translate Hebrew to English is to translate it into Greek first and there are many many disagreements of which words mean certain things. Example: there are several Greek words for love and each one means a different thing but in English there's only one word for love.
The Jews also omitted the books of Maccabees because they believed they were too violent. The Jews still read the books of Maccabees because it's the basis for one of their most important holidays, Hanukkah. I'm sure (I don't know this for a fact) that they are in the Talmud.
The Catholic Bible is also a complete Bible and it is about as readable as KJV. The Catholic Bible is the only Bible free of bias. It was created before man thought they were smarter than the writers of the Bible. King James re-translated the Bible because he disagreed with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church and re-worded things so that to common people it would look like the Catholic Church was lying to the people.
2007-08-20 14:21:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ten Commandments 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I favor The Amplified Bible. NASV could be good and likely is, but The Amplified Bible lays out alternative words in each verse so that the translation from Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek might be at least a little clearer.
Best to read a lot of translations, I think, and pick for yourself. I have read the King James Bible, The Living Bible, The Good News, the New International Version, and several others. For me, the Amplified Bible satisfies me.
KJV was good and appropriate in the 16th centuries when the English language did not have nearly as many words nor the sentence structure and grammar as the English language today.
2007-08-20 14:23:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The King James version of the Bible is an edited and rewritten version of the Geneva version of the Bible. The New Standard version or New American Bible are the closest translations to the original text and they don't have books edited out like the King James version or the New International Versions do.
2016-05-18 04:48:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That depends on you and the language you speak...
Yes, the NASV95 is a good translation, but it is written in relatively complex English. Many people would be better off with something that uses shorter sentences and simpler words. (Like several modern translations, the New American Standard Version is now in a new edition called ".... Updated Edition" with a 1995 copyright date.)
Also, many of those who formerly considered the NASV as tops in "accuracy" have now switched to the ESV, which also seems to me to be a bit stilted and uses more complex wording than is necessary to relate the meaning.
Here is a chart from http://www.christianbook.com/html/static/TRLT1003.html?event=AFF&p=1009253
Translation Grade Level
KJV 12th (King James)
RSV 12th (Revised Standard)
NASB 11th (New American Standard)
NRSV 11th (New Revised Standard)
ESV 10th (English Standard)
NIV 7th-8th (New International)
HCSB 7th-8th (Holman Christian Standard)
NKJV 7th (New King James)
NLT 6th (New Living)
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd (New Century)
NIRV 3rd (New International Readers)
I have been using Greek for my New Testament study for 24 years now, and generally prefer simpler English versions because they seem to do a better job of relating the meaning of the Greek of the New Testament, much of which is also written in relatively simple language.
As I have said numerous times, there is no universal "best Bible," rather it is a matter of personal preference, based in part on an individual's reading and comprehension level. Some languages have "official standards" so that you can only use certain words and their "official meanings" to relate ideas to the public. English is quite different. New words are being added on an almost daily basis. There are several regional differences among English speakers, around the world and even within English speaking countries.
... The KJV is VERY FAR from the "closest" Bible to the original languages. It ADDS several passages which are not found in the best manuscripts, ONE of which was UNKNOWN BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. It was not the FIRST English Bible, it missed that by about 225 years. It also contains numerous DELIBERATE MISTRANSLATIONS, some of which were INTENDED TO DECEIVE its readers.
2007-08-20 14:17:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Those Bibles that are approved by Hebrew and Greek Scholars are the most accurately translated. If they aren't approved then they are only good for toilet paper. I wish the NWT came in two ply! Have you ever wondered why the NWT isn't an approved translation?
The NWT has been altered and added to.
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut. 4:2
Beware of the scribes. Luke 20:46
I personally like the KJV and NKJV. I also have an NIV in my library and would love to get ASV and NASB.
2007-08-21 15:50:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, let me start by saying that you have heard correctly. The New American Standard (NASB) is the closest to the original text of the Scriptures. It was taken nearly verbatim from the Hebrew and Greek, which is difficult to do considering the extensive lexicon of those languages.
As to my personal preference, I prefer the English Standard Version (ESV). I find the NASB akwardly worded and difficult to follow at times. The ESV is very well-worded, easy to understand, and it keeps the meaning of the original text.
2007-08-20 14:24:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Aaron 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most english translations are derived from the Latin Vulgate. The New American Standard was comissioned to derive directly from the earliest greek, aramaic and hebrew text available, so it's likely the most accurate english version available. There's very few points of disagreement among most bibles, if you take into account that Protestant bibles leave out the books of the apocrypha.
2007-08-20 14:32:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I'm not a scholar so this is just opinion.
I like the good old KJV because I believe it has been responsible for more changed lives. ( many people I know personally ), and more conversions than any other version I know. It's been around a long time. I compared some parts of it to a Jewish bible and it seemed spot on accurate.
The Jewish bible did not have the books of Maccabees or some of the others so I belive the Catholics added those. so they are not scipture.
Jesus never quoted the books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobias or the other Apocrypha
2007-08-20 14:21:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by kevin s 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Well when they found the dead sea scrolls west bank 1947, it was said they translated exactly to the latest edition of the king James Bible. There was also a study that showed if every single Bible in the world today was destroyed, there would be enough quotes in other texts found in an average sized library to recreate the Bible.
2007-08-20 14:21:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
As for it's accuracy, the New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared."—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona
There were several reasons why the NWT was printed: 1) Most of the other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences, 2) Older and more reliable Bible manuscripts were becoming available, 3) As a result of archeological discoveries, the Greek language of the first century was becoming more clearly understood, and 4) The languages into which translations are made undergo changes over the years. (For instance, who today really talks like this?: "And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee?" Gen. 32:17 KJV) :)
2007-08-20 14:32:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋