Accurate Bible Translations ???

Question

This is something I struggle with ..

all of these "Translations" well translation from what?
Which source? .. where is this original I hear of?.. I've never seen it ?.. have you ?.. could you tell me where it is ?,.. and what makes that version acurate?

The question is do you believe in what is written in the bible .. well which part? which author?. the books that are currently in the bible? or the ones that are not?. some of the original text in their original language?, or the translations? the changes to adapt to the powers that be to meet their agendas or how the words were originally.. and again what defines the "original"

Folks fyi this is not an atheistic Troll I'm actually quite serious .. I would love to be able to have faith the accuracy of a manuscript .. I would love to truly know what was said between Jesus and Peter Simon ...

Answer 1

I read the first part of your question and can answer it, but I cannot answer about the Christian Bible.

The original holy scriptures are the books of the Torah. The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Ever since the first scribe put ink to scroll there has been a very strict commandment not to alter even the tiniest portion in it. It is a serious sin. The very oldest Torah fragements ever found match those still used in synagogues around the world. If I were to gamble on accuracy, I would say that of all the parts of the Bible..the Torah's are just like those used in ancient days. The entire Tanakh has this admonition followed and among the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls ( the oldest intact Biblical scrolls) THEY too, match the Hebrew Bibles in use today.

To get you started with an easily available translation, here is a LINE BY LINE..transliteration ( pronunciation) AND translation from the Hebrew of the Torah. You can even hear it in the Hebrew at this site. You can also get your own lexicon if you don't trust the translation provided..so you can see for YOURSELF the contextual translation from the original language. http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp

Here is a link to a complete Jewish Bible translated from the Hebrew ( and Aramaic for Daniel and portions of Ezra that were originally written in Aramaic )http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.html

As far as the Christian Bible..their "Old Testament", is anADAPTATION of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh ( whereby they rearrange the book order, alter a few verses here and there, and even split some books ) their Old Testament and their New Testament first appeared together in Greek. Some of the earliest gospels were perhaps written in Aramaic, however, I would imagine that perhaps the Greek Orthodox may have the oldest intact translations of those texts.

I respectfully suggest that at some time a comparison of the Christian adaptation "The Old Testament" and the Tanakh would help you, as well.
Note about a passage mentioned above: Here is the word for word translation of Genesis 22:1
22:1 Seventh Reading
After these events, God tested Abraham.
'Abraham!' He said.

'Yes.'
Vayehi achar hadevarim ha'eleh veha'Elohim nisa et-Avraham vayomer elav Avraham vayomer hineni.
22:2 'Take your son, the only one you love - Isaac - and go away to the Moriah area. Bring him as an all-burned offering on one of the mountains that I will designate to you.'
Vayomer kach-na et-bincha et-yechidecha asher-ahavta et-Yitschak velech-lecha el-erets haMoriah veha'alehu sham le'olah al achad heharim asher omar eleycha.

EDIT: I failed to answer some of the question above before..it is actually many questions. I am not a fundamenatlist literalist who believes that every story happened exactly as written. I believe the written Torah form is what the ancients believed to be literally true. I try very hard to keep in mind that their world, their contextual framework was very different than my own.
Cherry-picking is a term used to pick passages out of context..both from their story, their time and place and culture..used to support a particular dogma or agenda. I respectfully suggest one can study the texts in earnest attempt to avoid those pitfalls. Even if you study these texts as works of literature, there are truths of human nature to be learned from them. We study works of other ancients and recognize wisdom , so to can wisdom be discovered in the Tanakh despite the very different paradigm of culture and time and technology.
Also,after reading other answers: I can well imagine that most here will give answers that support their chosen dogma. My own list is starting to even appear that way to me as I am Jewish. However, keep in mind that it is the Jewish religion's texts in an adapted form that make up the largest portion of the Christian religion's holy texts. The NewTestament is a replacement theology. It's very name testifies to that and the fact that Tertullian first named their adaptation of Tanakh and the eternal covenant of Israel an " Old Testament" in the second century for that effect. Consider that, too, in reading the "New Testament" after reading the Tanakh in it's own context.

I must EDIT again to help clear up misinformation given by another respondent that anyone can look up to verify and I shall mention even other OLDER fragments of the Hebrew Bible than the Dead Sea scrolls ( by several hundred years) that also support the claims that the current Torahs are virtually identical to those used in ancient times.

Here is a link to determine for YOURSELF the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls to our understanding of the language of the Hebrew Bible and how accurate it remains: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/ < This is the "home" of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Israel at Hebrew University and about their scholarship

here is a link to Tanakh fragments hundreds of years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls :
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3062895,00.html
copy pasted from this article : "Using a sophisticated digital photography technique, he revealed the scroll’s contents, which included a passage from the fourth book of the Old Testament and the so-called Aaronite priestly blessing.



Barkay said the discovery of this early biblical inscription is an important argument supporting an earlier dating of the Bible.



"I can at least say that these verses existed in the 7th century, the time of the Prophet Jeremiah,” Barkay said. This would make the texts hundreds of years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls"


While ancient Hebrew script is not used today, there are many Hebrew scholars who are quite familiar with ancient Hebrew grammar and ancient Hebrew is not nearly so far from liturgical Hebrew as even Old English is from modern English. Hebrew as a language of liturgy and scholarship was never a lost language but one that was spread over many lands. My own Great-Great and Great Grandfathers taught Hebrew in the 1800s to read and write, when their villagers were illiterate to the languages of the larger community around them, they could read and write in Hebrew script in Russia! They wrote Yiddish in transliterated Hebrew script. The language of the ancient Torah was understood among some of these people who had never stepped foot inside any other school than a small private "cheder".

By showing that the most ancient texts match those in use today, it supports the claims of the scribes who transcribe them in their seriousness of making the utmost effort not to alter the tiniest portion in so doing. It would be a serious sin to do so and I cannot imagine people taking on such a monumental task to begin with if they didn't take their job seriously.

Answer 2

1st, as other answers suggested, you have to realize that, for any foreign language work of some length, there *is* no objective way to measure the *accuracy* of a translation. Translations from one language to another are, without exception, ambiguous in several instances (unless you have the author present). In addition, the most reliable texts we have to use (Masoretic text) are *at least* 1000 years old, and many better (closer to the original) individual texts are even older. Thus, scholars are not translating from a language that is fully understood, such as French, but rather from languages that are no longer in use: *ancient* Hebrew, *ancient* Greek and Aramaic. Thus, it is *very* difficult (impossible) to claim with any objectivity that any particular modern scholarly translation is more accurate than another modern scholarly translation.

As for the source documents, they are *all* hand copies of hand copies of hand copies...etc. that have been copied by the hand of uninspired men over *centuries*. We do *not* have the autographs (original works). Therefore, even if translation were a perfect science, we do not have the perfect originals to translate. What we do have are several very ancient manuscripts which can be compared and a "majority text" of sorts produced from which to translate. Which manuscripts are given the most weight is entirely a subjective call by the translators and, thus, there is no specific original languages text which has authority above all others. Those who mention the Dead Sea Scrolls should realize that *very* few canonical Old Testament books (I believe only one! Isaiah) have been found *complete* among them. These 2000-year-old fragments which contain small portions of several verses are important, but of very limited worth.

But, what we *do* have is *the closest thing* to the word of God that is available. *That* is certain. We *know* that it is not the perfect word of God, and unless we discover the autographs and learn how to read the ancient languages perfectly, we will never have the perfect word of God. However, as I said, it *is* the closest thing that we have, and it is sufficient to lead us to salvation.

*That* being said, here is a link to my "what bible should I pick" answer. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqyYD3DH3gq2OUGLnYTtfJrsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070917132118AAV1pCn&show=7#profile-info-e914b766baa907d43e2b84ea530f39d4aa

I hope this helps.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

+ Old Testament +

The Dead Sea Scroll contain:
- All of the books of the Old Testament (Hebrew scriptures) except Esther
- Several books that never became part of the Hebrew Scriptures
- Numerous commentaries on the Scriptures
- Books having to do with
.....- Community life
.....- Rules for living
.....- Temple worship
.....- Other matters

There are many duplicates. Fourteen copies of Deuteronomy have been found and two of Isaiah.

The scrolls are important because they:
- Testify to the accuracy of the people who copied and recopied the Scriptures over the centuries. Despite minor errors, they show us that the Old Testament has not changed since it was compiled.
- Throw light on beliefs and customs in Palestine during times between the Old and New Testamants. There was far more diversity among the Jews than had been thought.

For more information, see:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0500.asp

+ New Testament +

We do have second and third century manuscripts of all the New Testament writings to which we can check our modern Bibles. Many believe that some of the bits of manuscripts are from the first century (between 50 and 100 C.E.).

Try:
Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
New Testament Manuscripts: The Basic Facts: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_the.html
Josh McDowell Answers Questions about the New Testament: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html
How many copes of the original New Testament documents are there? http://www.facingthechallenge.org/copies.php
Is the New Testament Text Reliable? http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068
And:
http://home.att.net/~kmpope/FirstCenturyMSS.html
http://greek-language.com/greek.manuscripts.gateway/
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

+ With love in Christ.

Answer 4

The dead sea scrolls are the old testament.

The new testament was supposedly complied about a century after the death of their cult leader and martyr, Jesus. The first records of this new testament aren't found until 3 centuries later and are greek and hebrew translations of the so called originals. Since then its been edited, updated, and translated dozens of times over thousands of years. Its hard to believe its very accurate at this point.

Answer 5

I am a KJV Christian and depend completely on the fact that it is Gods Word. I have recently came across another Bible translation that doesn't change what is said in the KJV but defines it in a way that we can understand things in a clearer sense. I will give you an example.
Here is the KJV of Abraham when he was asked of God to sacrifice Isaac.Note that it says "that God did tempt Abraham", yet Gods Word tells us, KJV that God will not tempt any man,James 1:13.
Gen 22:1 " And it came to pass after these things, that God did (tempt) Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."

Now here is the same verse from the NASB Bible.Note the change to "God tested Abraham.Tempted and tested can be translated to mean the same thing in Greek depending on how it is used.This does not change the meaning here but gives us a better understanding of what is meant to be understood.I have heard that the NASB Bible is so close to the the Greek and Hebrew that those who are studying Greek and Hebrew are using it in place of the Greek and Hebrew.
Gen 22:1 Now it came about after these things, that (God tested Abraham), and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."

Answer 6

I suggest reading "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman.

He presents all those issues pretty well. Also, www.earlychristianwritings.com has excellent analysis by Catholic, fundamentalists and secular sources of each text and translation.

Basically, you are right. There is no way to know what is accurate and original and correct in terms of translation or belief systems.

Answer 7

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 8

It is my belief that an older KJV of the Bible is the best translation available.
It is easily referenced back into the Greek or Hebrew.
It is what I use and rely on.

Answer 9

* The orginal manuscripts do not exist for the new testament.

* Yes I do believe what is written in the bible

* All parts

* Author is GOD

*There is known proof that anything has ever been change from then orginal documents "How could you Know they don't exist".

have faith and truth shall be revealed!


God loves you....God bless
orginal documents

Answer 10

The very act of translating creates inaccuracies. Some ideas and words can't be translated.