Which is the most accurate version of the BIBLE?

Question

That preserves God,s truth UNDILUTED, and unchanged.Also if answering, the lineage,source Transcripts,and whatother information you have concerning source and dates of manuscripts. May God,s Holy Spirit add his Blessings.

Answer 1

No way to tell. God coulda said, "Hey Jesus flip the switch." Instead of, "Let there be light."

We don't know because we wern't there.

Answer 2

They're all pretty accurate. Most of them were translated from the oldest manuscripts we possess.

However, up until the middle of the last century, the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament we possessed dated back to around the 10th century. The Dead Sea scrolls are now the oldest, and some of them date back to the third century B.C. In comparing the DSS to the other manuscripts though, they were found to be nearly identical.

The oldest complete copy of the New Testament dates back to the 4th century, though there are surviving fragments that date back to the 2nd century. It's from the manuscripts of the 4th century that most Bibles are translated.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that a 100% literal interpretation is really hard to accomplish when translating from one language to another. So, if you REALLY want accuracy, you'd have to learn Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew, and read the manuscripts yourself.

The English Bibles do come very close, however.

Answer 3

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) Is probably the most literal translation from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia was consulted for the 1995 revision. For Greek, Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece was used; the 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision.

Answer 4

It wouldn't be the King James Version as it has many changes in its translation, including the removal of God's personal name, and the changing of scriptures to make it sound as if there is a such thing as the trinity. The New World translation would be the most accurate and dependable one to use.

Just because a translation is old, doesn't mean it's the most accurate. For instance, with the King James Version, you get the version and rendering that King James wanted the people to have, which means that the translators weren't exactly looking for accuracy so much as they were looking to give the king exactly what he wanted so they could save their heads.

Answer 5

The holy bible is very hard to authenticate, you must remember that most people could not read or write in those days, so events recorded were in most cases taken and written down by village scribes or holy men! Even the Apostles were illiterate in most cases! So the news of events sometimes waited weeks before the scribes came to the various dwellings to copy the events down as they heard them and also to spread the news of other events throughout the country. So you can see the difficulty of authenticating the bible today! Have a great day!

Answer 6

That is purely a matter of opinion. No translation of the Bible is totally free of bias, so if you want the most accurate, you should find an interlinear Bible which translates the words literally. Then use and compare several different versions against the interlinear. You will most likely find pros and cons in whichever translations you use.

Answer 7

sadly i cant answer that question have you seen just how many versions of the bible there is? i mean the list goes on and on. people have changed it over the years according to their beliefs and how they take what is written. each group of christians have a different version they use. each group also differs by a slight bit/. i was tired of trying to figure it all out i began studying islam. they have 1 book in its origional arabic. it has been translated to english and spanish and so on but the arabic no matter any quran you pick up the arabic is exactly the same as the next. i am glad God cleared my confusion and made it clear in the quran exactly what we have to do in this life to obtain heaven.

Answer 8

King James Version
Hebrew translation

Answer 9

Since God is fake, I'm guessing that this is a trick question.

There is no undiluted unchanged version of the Bible. Even the oldest Masoretic manuscripts do not agree 100%.

Answer 10

Nowadays, nobody can anymore tell... The challenge now is on each one to be able to discern the workings of the True Spirit. When you have peace, love and joy and humility in your heart and soul, then be assured you are in God's grace.

Answer 11

First, you should understand that there is no objective method for determining the accuracy of a translation of any significant amount of text from one language to another. Translation from one language to another is *frequently* subjective. There is no way around this. For example, I have 3 translations of "Around the World in 80 Days". This is from a story little more than 100 years old, written in French, a *very* well understood language, still spoken today, from a period whose literature is *very* well documented. Yet, there are still 3 English "versions", and two of them are quite recent!

Consider, then, the translation of ancient languages - languages that (we presume) are no longer spoken today as they were then (Aramaic is not spoken at all). Ancient Hebrew, in fact, did not even have written vowels. How certain can a translation be?

That being said, we can make a stab at analyzing the accuracy of a translation. Generally, we would prefer
1) a *recent* translation - one that takes advantage of the most recent advances in scholarship and the most recent archaeological discoveries of ancient manuscripts, and additionally is translated into modern English.
2) a *scholarly* translation - one that uses well-respected scholars of ancient languages, preferably with previous experience in the very texts with which they are responsible for translation
3) an *unbiased* translation - one that uses a multi-denominational committee to vote on / approve the translation of every verse

An aside: some answers claimed the NASB is the most accurate. The NASB *is* generally considered to be the most *literal* translation, but this is *not* the same as most *accurate*. Indeed, translating done in a word-for-word literal manner (as the NASB) *generally* tends to produce an *inaccurate* translation, as phrases often contain meanings that are not inherent in the words which they contain. these "figures of speech" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech can be quite common, and the Old Testament, for example, is full of euphemisms and references which do *not* translate accurately to English on a word-for-word basis. Despite this inherent difficulty with literal translation, the NASB *is* well-regarded. In other words, the NASB is a worthy translation (in the estimation of many) - but should *not* be considered the most accurate because it is the most literal!

Since there's no objective way to determine accuracy.....
here's my opinion:

My current favorite version is the New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition (NJBRE). It *seems to me* that the words used are carefully chosen to produce a precise meaning. This means that you may need to refer to a dictionary occasionally! In addition, all of the names of God in the Old Testament that are *not* translatable are transliterated rather than translated. This, to me, greatly enhances the accuracy of the translation (particularly when the tetragrammaton or "Sabaoth" are used). Unfortunately, this practice is not extended to the words "christ" and "messiah" (which, IMHO, should always be translated in order to provide greater accuracy and better understanding). However, no other version (that I know) universally translates these 2 words, either. The NJBRE also has an excellent verse reference notation system, and *excellent* study notes.
The downsides of the NJBRE? The translation was done in 1985 - somewhat dated, and the new version cannot be expected for several years http://ebaf.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=173&Itemid=52 .This is a Roman Catholic (RC) sponsored translation, and *a very few* of the study notes show this bias. It *may* be that the translation itself contains a hidden RC bias, though I have not detected any such within the translation. My full review http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm

Others (briefly):
2nd choice - Oxford Annotated NRSV Augmented 3rd Edition - study notes are perhaps superior even to the NJBRE, and even more books are included (3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151). Downside: over-enthusiastic use of gender-inclusive language.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAnnotated-Apocrypha-Augmented-Revised-Standard%2Fdp%2F0195288815%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044490%26sr%3D8-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325

3rd choice - Oxford Annotated RSV Expanded Edition - *supposed* to have study notes on par with NRSV mentioned above, and similarly complete inclusion of books. Also, does *not* have the gender-inclusive problem. Tends to be more literal than other translations. Downside: essentially a 1950's translation, so dated.

If scholarly study notes (which greatly enhance your understanding of the meaning of verses) are not desirable, you may also consider these:
NASB - as mentioned, widely regarded to be the most literal, and uses an "abridged" canon (omits several books), but highly regarded and well-accepted. I often use this on Y!A because it is so well accepted by most Christians and I can point to the literalness of the translation, if necessary.
NIV - highly regarded, also uses an "abridged" canon. Probably has the best claim to no denominational bias (though translation approved by an essentially Protestant committee). Somewhat dated (1970s).
CEV - easiest-to-read translation (not a paraphrase). More recent than NIV with better (but limited) notes, and includes most books. Downside: a "easy-to-read" translation *can* lose some accuracy in the effort of making it easier to read. I have not read this version through, and so cannot give any significant insight into how this version is affected.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-with-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F158516173X%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1196142796%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325

Chart showing the "physical" differences of many versions
http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/chart.htm
(I need to update this)

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