Which, if any, are considered more accurate than the King James version?

I've preferred the New English translation of the bible. But there are many others.

Except amplified versions which are paraphrases rather than pure translations.

There is one new English language translation of the Bible for each year since the KJV was published.

A lot of people go for the NIV, but I'm not a fan. RSV and NAB?

I've kept a copy of the NIV along with my older KJV. Didn't realize the NEV publishes a new translation every year.

The JST isn't really all that much of a translation from what I could tell. It was a lot of appendixes and add-ons, making the KJV more convoluted and nonsensical, except to Joseph Smith aka false prophet (adding onto the bible that was foreseen by its original authors.) The RLDS still uses that, but refers to it as "inspired version," rather than biblical.

There are different methods of translation (too complicated to get into here but you can research this to gain more understanding). You can translate something word for word or strive to convey the meaning.

Among "evangelicals" the NASB and the ESV seem to be favored for accuracy.

notmonotloggedin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Among "evangelicals" the NASB and the ESV seem to
> be favored for accuracy.

Or...favored for language agreement with their already-existing beliefs.

As I pointed out below, it's not really possible to even determine "accuracy." So people/groups pick ones they LIKE.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2018 09:32AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Depends on what you mean by "accurate."

As there are no original texts for any of the bible books, it's simply not possible to have a version that's "accurate" if you mean one that most accurately reflects the original texts.

And with the thousands of copies of copies of copies of the supposed original texts often contradicting each other (and having different content), it's also not possible to have a version that's "accurate" if you mean one that reflects all of the variations of the extant manuscript copies.

The KJV "committee" had an agenda when they produced their version. Their mandate wasn't really "accuracy" (in fact, they knowingly used manuscript variants they knew had big problems), their mandate was to produce a version with poetic-sounding text, and without catholic-supporting ideas. They meant to (and did) produce a "protestant" bible.

More recent versions replace the antiquated text of the KJV with more modern English -- which may be more readable, but may or may not be more "accurate" when it comes to what the original authors may have meant to say.

So...pick a version you find readable, and that you like. When it comes right down to it, none are more "accurate" than any other.

KJV, NIV, ESV,NKJ and the NRSV are considered the formal versions. The KJV was the gold standard of all the versions. Now within these versions, the NRSV is considered more accurate that the KJV. There have been better ways of translation and more finding after the KJV. But all formal versions are considered good for formal study.

The one I feel is both the best for footnotes, correctness, and readability is the Catholic "New American Bible". The vocabulary is more extensive then, for example, the NIV which I find to be dumbed down. The NIV also, even the footnoted version I have, fails to note errors and alternative readings of some scriptures. I found it interesting that certain scriptures I always found odd were added and not found in the earliest writings. The NAV catches them.

I have been enjoying my read of the NAB. I am now in the Book of Revelation. This is so refreshing after years and years of reading only the KJV. And I am understanding the Bible better!

It is difficult to consider any version accurate of a collection of stories that have been translated and retranslated hundreds of times, mostly by hand, and under the direction of Pope's, Kings, and who knows who, many of whom had their own agenda and reasons to "tweak" wording to their liking should they choose to do so.

The thing with translations is that often words and phrases in one language simply do not translate "directly" and must be interpreted. This leaves the meanings open to the skill of the interpreter and relies on his own expertise.

I have done my share of translating and I have seen the same phrases in one language translated various ways by different translators. If that process is repeated with a new set of translators over and over, it becomes like gossip where the phrase, "Nancy has put on some weight lately," runs through ten different conversations and ends up, "Nancy is pregnant and carrying twins for an alien and the government is looking for her."

I do not agree. As translators find older manuscripts and can correct errors, the scriptures are improved. The problems come, of course, when it is found that a translation is wrong and it has been used for a significant belief or tenet of faith. In Luke, for example, what JS increased to Christ "bleeding from every pore" wasn't anything like that. Indeed, the best and oldest manuscripts don't even have the idea that it was "as if". The angel is also not in the original manuscripts! The fact JS elaborated and increased the wrong verses is a further proof that he was just a con man. The reason that some recent versions don't drop the two verses entirely is simply that in the mid-nineteenth century it was a common belief but even then good scholars knew better.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2018 07:45PM by rhgc.

From a blog I read just yesterday:

"Bible producers only want to make money. With the exception of a few public domain versions that have been produced recently, all translations are made to make money. Not to spread the truth, to make money. Even the Navajo Bible.

And that brings me to my main point:

If you believe the Bible you can buy on the shelf of your local Wal-Mart is 100% inerrant and 100% the Word of God, you’re going to have a bad time.

Because when a company’s motive is to make money, usually for the stockholders who don’t actually work for the company, that is where their heart will be. Not in producing the best English translation, but in making the best English translation they can sell in a leather-bound edition for about $100. If a translation is produced by a committee that has a salesperson in it, the salesperson is going to have the final say, plain and simple.

And in spite of the best intentions of the scholars and linguists and historians on that committee, their work will still have to be something the salesperson can sell.

And I guarantee that every single translation, every single one that some company holds the copyright for, there is at least one passage and probably several, that is purposely mistranslated to fit the beliefs of the target buyers rather than being an honest, true translation into English. Every. Single. English. Bible. On every shelf in every retail location."

https://christianitywithouttheinsanity.org/2018/05/09/opinion-if-you-believe-the-bible-is-the-inerrant-word-of-god-youre-going-to-have-a-bad-time/

Now tell us about all 41,000 flavors of christianity.

This is like asking which Dr Seuss book is most accurate.

To me the issue is not which version is the best but why the Mormon Church uses only the KJV. I believe it is because Smith concocted his various "new" doctrines while using the KJV and switching to any other translation with the slightest variation might add additional questions to his doctrines . They started with the KJV and they are stuck with it.

Good insight kentish.

That does make sense.

...and let's not forget that the BoM contains huge sections of direct copies from the KJV bible. And since it is, of course, "the most perfect book on earth," mormons can't ditch the KJV without admitting that the BoM, which copies large portions of it, is wrong.

Yep, they're stuck.

Which is the best bible on which to swear?

I gotz ta know!

This is an extremely complex issue. From the earliest compilations which were based on the legends and annals of the ancient Sumerians there were various interpretations inserted into the text.
A good comparative read would be "The Lost Book Of Enki". I have been working on a comparative analysis between the Hebrew bible AKA old testament and this book for a couple of years now and I am finding some astounding similarities. Therefore I question all translations unless they can support their hypothesis with unchallengeable evidence. Read these books with tongue in cheek and take what they say with a grain of salt. But most important THINK FOR YOURSELF!!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2018 02:26PM by thedesertrat1.

I use a paraphrased version from 1972 that I found for $2. Much easier to understand, the deciphering has been done by smart people (I don't know who they are) but I get to read what they think the bible was suppose to mean.

So far I haven't any parts that I disagree with in the reinterpretation.

I've heard there is a feminist bible, where god is a woman who gets to put the shmack down on everyone, and a gay sensitive bible,

Thanks for all the great responses!

It makes my head spin. Reading the bible from cover to cover is tough enough doing one time. Which I did reading the KJV years ago. Now I peruse whatever bible happens to be nearby. The translation isn't as important to me although it is to differing religions. Based on their understanding and interpretation. Which means it is open to interpretation IMO, and not set in stone. Scripture, like a good Constitution, is fluid enough not to change with the times. But to have meaning for the times it is in.

For the first five "Books of Moses" the Everett Fox translation
is interesting.

Much of the wording in the original Hebrew is very poetic--
relying on alliteration more than rhyme (that's how ancients did
it). Often we wonder why a certain word was used in a passage.
Often at least part of the answer is how it sounded in Hebrew.
This is very fitting for a culture where there was probably only
one copy of the text per neighborhood and where it was read
aloud to the group rather than silent reading on one's own
(Augustine remarks upon a scholar he met who could read
silently--evidence that reading was out loud in antiquity)

Fox's translation trys to preserve this aural-poetic aspect and
is replete with many footnotes to tell you what the original
Hebrew did.