Which Bible translation is a true translation from the origi

[Lewis]

Q. What current English Bible translation is a true translation from the original manuscripts?

Written by: Charlotte Grantham

A. I have studied this issue for many of my twenty years as a Christian and so have just about all Bible scholars. Some will worship the use of the King James Version but we must remember that English is merely a translation not the original text.

There are two present sets of original manuscripts available for these translators to use. One is the Received Text which comes from the Byzantine era which was at that time more closely associated to the true apostolic fathers who were the eye witnesses to Jesus life, death and resurrection. The Western church took up the heresies of the Gnostic and other doctrines that were not held as canon by the Apostles and Paul.

The other text that seems to be a favorite for the ones who would like to change or twist the translation to mean what they want it to mean are using the Vaticanus or Siniaticus. This text was considered by scholars in the Middle Ages to be not only spurious but in error and was discarded as credible. From what I have read this manuscript had been on the shelf at the Vatican library for some many years untouched because they realized the monk's errors. Because it was not used and was found older than the most recent copies of the Received Text, modern translators (who are perverting the truth by using it) thought it was a better one to use. I tend to steer away from any of the translations which use this text rather than the Received Text. A good book to read to help you understand the intricacies of what God was allowing to happen to the church from the first to the present century can be found in Alan Knight's book Primitive Christianity. (Read 2Thessalonians for the prophecy of this time when deception will be the rule rather than truth.)
Now as to what is the best English translation. I would suggest one that uses the tried and true "Received Text" or the one that the King James Version was written from. The KJV also has political and doctrinal errors because it was translated by a committee who was at that time influenced by the Catholic Church rather than the early Apostolic Celtic or Culdee Church of England.

The early British church was started not by Rome but by some of the Apostles who were sent to the lost tribes in their dispersion. It used an English translation from the original Italia manuscripts but these are very rare today. I have not seen a copy of this version and it is not likely one will as with all of the material from that era was destroyed and discredited by their enemies. (I have several books that tell the story of the early Culdee Church that flourished in England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as Northern Europe until Rome stamped them out during the Inquisition.)

It is a difficult study but with the help of Strong's or Young's Concordance and some basic understanding of the way Greek and Hebrew was used we can all arrive at the correct meaning of the words of Scripture. And of course the inspiration of the Holy Spirit if one asks for God's help will make it even more clear as we mature.

My husband and I had been using the New American Standard but when the knowledge of these deceptions were know we went back to the King James and likely the NKJV (NEW King James Version) is the better one to understand. I do not know where you are in your walk with God but as a new learner who needs to understand the concepts in a basic way I would use a good paraphrase such as The Good News.

If you are a more mature Christian and you prefer to compare texts by all means do so, but just remember translators take a lot of license as some idiomatic and figurative phrases do not readily translate out into the English language well. We have been listening to Mordakhai Joseph (whose lessons are available at http://www.teachingthelaw.org) to understand the Hebrew meanings and we have been listening to Fred Coulter at http://www.cbcg.org for his understanding of the Greek language. Mr. Coulter has published an entirely NEW translation of the Bible called The Holy Bible In Its Original Order - A Faithful Version with Commentary. He used the Received Text and has made the translation as accurate as possible.

The majority of the newer versions have stopped using the received text and are using the Vaticanus that has many errors in its translation as I mentioned above so I would be very careful in selecting my new Bible. Not only are ministers preaching unscripturally but the Scriptures are being corrupted as well. We must be very aware of this and use our ability to discern truth from lies carefully.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/which-bible-translation-is-closes-to-original-manuscripts.html

 

[Lewis]

The Corrupt Codex Vaticanus

(also known as Codex B)

Codex Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative of the Minority Texts, although it is responsible for over 36,000 changes that appear today in the new versions.


This manuscript was "found" in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held, and from whence it received its name. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.

The corrupt and unreliable nature of Codex B is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: "The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

According to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, "It should be noted . . . that there is no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in (Codex) B."

Consider these facts and oddities relating to the Codex Vaticanus:

1.

It was corrected by revisers in the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries (W. Eugene Scott, Codex Vaticanus, 1996).
2.

The entire manuscript has been mutilated...every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible. Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals).
3.

In the Gospels it leaves out 749 entire sentences and 452 clauses, plus 237 other words, all of which are found in hundreds of other Greek manuscripts. The total number of words omitted in Codex B in the Gospels alone is 2,877 as compared with the majority of manuscripts (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 75).
4.

Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, but a blank space is left for that section of Scripture. The following testimony is by John Burgon, who examined Vaticanus personally: “To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we possess, St. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. HE HAS LEFT IN THIS PLACE ONE COLUMN ENTIRELY VACANT. IT IS THE ONLY VACANT COLUMN IN THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT -- A BLANK SPACE ABUNDANTLY SUFFICIENT TO CONTAIN THE TWELVE VERSES WHICH HE NEVERTHELESS WITHHELD. WHY DID HE LEAVE THAT COLUMN VACANT? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from which Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out -- and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, by withholding them; for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient witness than itself.†(Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark Vindicated, 1871, pp. 86-87)
5.

Similar to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus identifies itself as a product of gnostic corruption in John 1:18, where “the only begotten Son†is changed to “the only begotten God,†thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son of God Jesus Christ from God Himself by claiming that the Word was not the same as the Son. John’s Gospel identifies the Son directly with the Word (John 1:1, 18), but by changing "Son" to "God" in verse 18, this direct association is broken.
6.

Linguistic scholars have observed that Codex Vaticanus is reminiscent of classical and Platonic Greek, not Koine Greek of the New Testament (see Adolf Deissman's Light of the Ancient East). Nestle admitted that he had to change his Greek text (when using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) to make it "appear" like Koine Greek.
7.

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!). http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_vaticanus.html/

 

[CSICop]

Actually, most of the modern translations (ie 20th century and forward) are using a variety of manuscripts (some 5,000+) that have been recovered (ie Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid 20th century) that were NOT available during the Middle Ages, nor during the Renaissance.

The reason so many of these modern translations seem to be "missing" verses is because none of the documents have those verses in them, or a reference in any shape or form, compared to what the Received Text (Textus Receptus) says.

The KJV came about as a result of the Church of England, after the break away from the Roman Catholic Church. The KJV was translated from earlier translations, NOT the original Hebrew (OT). Furthermore, the entire league of 47 scholars for the KJV were members of the Church of England, unlike the NIV where you had over 100 scholars from a variety of denominations. One can only assume that the Church of England's KJV says what they FELT it should say to support Protestantism at that time.

It is a beautiful translation, especially if you like Shakespeare, but it is far from being close to the original.

 

[shad]

Thank you CS1 for your information.

Then which one is translated from the original?

thanks.

 

[CSICop]

There was no "original" Bible, it was merely a collection of scrolls.

Translation after translation happened after the death of Jesus, and these translations were from limited resources. Today's translations are from far more resources that have been recovered from archaeological digs & excavations.

You also have to wonder how much influence the Roman Catholic church had in the earlier translations. Back then only the clergy could read the Bible because it was translated into Latin. The church literally told people what to believe and how to worship. When the Church of England broke away from the Roman Catholic church, along came the KJV in archaic English. I say archaic because we certainly do not speak like that today unless you're performing a Shakespeare play.

Today's more modern translations come from all those documents that have been recovered, with some pre-dating what the KJV was based off of by more than 1,000 years. Scholars from around the world and from different denominations study and pour over all these documents, decide what is the most accurate translation they can give, and thus you get NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc.

Here's the kicker. Ancient languages may not have a direct English translation. This is where you get thought for thought translations along with word for word, when applicable. Thought for thought is subject to interpretation and best guess. "We the scholars, after reviewing all the documents before us, THINK this is what was meant by such and such verse(s)."

This holds true for every translation of the Bible ever made, including the 400 year old KJV.

 

[CSICop]

A short answer would be, none.

A better answer would be, scholars work tirelessly to TRY and make modern translations as accurate as possible, and use a large committee of multi-denominational, multi-national "experts" to pour over the documents available to us today, agree on what belongs and what doesn't, and in the end you get translation X.

But...

You also have publishers (the $$$ holders) that want copyrights on "God's work," so now you have different versions from different scholarly committees because of this. The exception is the KJV as it is public domain.

They all say pretty much the same thing, it's just the wording (flavor) may be slightly different in order to avoid plagiarism.

I personally like parallel study Bibles. That way you can see for yourself how things were written in the KJV, NIV, NASB, TNIV, Amplified, etc. If I had to choose just 2 in order to avoid dragging a 10lb book around, I'd go with KJV/NIV parallel...until B&H Publishing releases a KJV/HCSB version!

 

[TheUnworthyServant]

There is only one Bible. The King James Bible-1611. Please read the following before disagreeing with this statement. It makes no sense to attack the messenger, without first knowing the message.

http://www.theunworthyservant.com/why-the-kjv.html

 

[CSICop]

I've read it. Here's some more history for you to ponder over...

The Old Testament translation from Hebrew to Greek is called the Septuagint, or LLX. This was around 282 BC. The Old Testament based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text was several HUNDRED years later. The ancient Jews resented the Christian's views on Jesus as the Messiah. Let that sink in. Edomite Jews actually tried to corrupt the Masoretic Text because it was being used to translate Hebrew into Latin for Christians. How much corruption is there, no one can say for sure.

Jerome, in the 4th century AD, translated from the (corrupt) Masoretic Text to create his Latin Vulgate, which infuriated the Catholic church because it was using the Old Latin Vulgate, which was based off the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

The Old Testament for the KJV was based off the same (corrupt) Masoretic Text as well as some of Jerome's Latin Vulgate when the translators needed a "reference point" to work with.

The New Testament for the KJV was based off the Textus Receptus, or received text. This was based off late Byzantine text, but it is interesting to note that it contains material that was NOT in the actual Byzantine text predating the 16th century AD.

At the time of the 1611 KJV, very FEW documents were available for research and reference.

Fast forward 400 years...

Modern English translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, etc) draw upon the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartens and the Septuagint for the Old Testament. The BHS is a Hebrew text, however, it has been compared to every available document found in the last 400 years and CORRECTED based off those documents. The Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1940-1950 era support modern Old Testament translations...documents which were NOT available at the time of the 1611 KJV.

For the New Testament, most modern English translations use the Novum Testamentum Graece (or the Nestle-Aland ed.), NOT the Textus Receptus. The NTG has been proven by scholars from denominations around the world to be more accurate, including Protestants!

So the KJV, while a great version and one of the best poetic pieces of literature ever written, is not the most accurate, given its lineage of translations and resources.

The NASB is close to the KJV, but it draws upon the modern documents while maintaining the 16th century style. It is a harder read than the NIV (which I do not really like) but if you are at least in high school, the NASB should not be a problem and will give you the most literal translation available.

 

[Lewis]

Good stuff CSICop

 

[anthony123]

Unfortunately there are no original manuscripts for the Bible, so all authenticity and original writing is up for debate. There are more errors (minor and some major) across all the non-original manuscripts of the Bible than there are words in the New Testament.

The early 'Catholic' Church determined what were the most reliable copied manuscripts to include in the Bible you see today. There is also evidence that this group may have created some major changes in the Bible you see today. See anything written by Bart Ehrmann.

Some say the KJV is the only version of the Bible. Of course this is not true, because it is not based on evidence. It is a statement of Faith. The best a Christian can do is rely on logic and evidence when interpreting scripture, and, most importantly, stick to the core message of Christ so as not to be led astray by legalist fundamentalism.

Do you think that God cares that his message be delivered in one ancient format? Whenever we use words to describe the core truths we are always obscuring them, because what word arrangements or writing styles could possibly encompass truth.

 

[TheUnworthyServant]

anthony123: Unfortunately there are no original manuscripts for the Bible, so all authenticity and original writing is up for debate.

So essentially God is a liar. Right?
Psalm 12: 6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in Heaven.
Psalm 119:111 Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.
Psalm 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away. 25 But the word of the LORD endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

[jasoncran]

so then the other nonenglish ones that arent based on the kjv sources are bad, i do use the kjv but it has errors as well, btw do you even have the 1611 version, It's unlikely that you do as fewer then 40 exist.Most are the 1768 version of it, vince did a thread on the errors between kjv versions. some have capital Spirit while other other have lower case spirit. The johannine comma is another error in that version.

 

[anthony123]

UnworthyServant:

I don't think you get my point. Biblical verses may allude to, or, in fact state that the Bible is the Word of God. But that doesn't change the evidence that there is many ancient versions of the Bible and no original manuscripts to compare them to. Imagine what the early century Believer read? It was not the Bible, it was more likely the Hebrew texts and Paul's (among others) letters to churches; no doubt many of those letters are not included in today's Bible.

So before we make any absolute statements regarding what version is God's Word, we should learn exactly how the Bible was organized into the version we see today. You should become familiar with the Councils of Nicea. It is an interesting history full of politics and infighting that led to the Bible you see today.

 

[anasazi avatar]

I can only put here my own experiences.
When I was ready to make,(or not make), a commitment to God I first needed to read His Word. But with so many versions around, which one was the problem.
I then did what I continue to do...I went to God in prayer. As with the sheepskin I said to God in Prayer that I will read His Word if He gives me the right Bible to read. I was almost penniless at the time so went into a 2nd hand shop and there were 2 Bibles there. A KJV and a New American. I have read both and they are very similar to each other.
I had, many years later, a similar experience. I awoke early one morning with only one word on my tongue and on my mind. It was a name from in the Bible. I went to God in prayer and said that in order for me to obey Him I will need to understand His message; so could He please either bring me an interpreter or supply me with a concordance. A week later I was given a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.
These books are my study resources, given to me by God, through others.
We MUST be on our guard with these new translations of the Bible. Even the modern King James Version. I have one that says, in the footnotes, that they don't know what happened on the Wednesday during the crucifixion week of Christ. That was the actual day that Jesus Christ was crucified. So, yes we must always choose the right Bibles to read, but first pray over the matter and for guidance before purchasing.
I also avow that God will not let His Word be lost, so there must be correct version(s) still that even the poorest of us may receive it.

Maranatha

 

[jasoncran]

yrs ago one could just pick any bible up and not worry about the lies of men distorting it, now its beggining to be a good idea to check the bible throughly before buying a new one. The lost are the one who will be affected,but i beleive that the lord can lead them to the right version to get them to hear the word. I learned how to read the kjv version from the holy ghost.

 

[Steve]

The original poster is reading too much KJO material. There are certain turns of expression that only KJO'ers use that marks them immediately.
There are four types of Bibles available today: Formal Equivalence('literal'); mediating(a balance beetween FE and Dynamic Equivalence); Dynamic Equivalence)thought-for-thought); and paraphrase.

The FE translations would be NASB, NASBUpdate, NKJV, KJV, ESV, RSV, NAB These are more concerned with the original language, and translating words.
The mediating versions would be HCSB, NIV, NRSV, NJB
Dynamic Equivalent: NLT, NCV, REB, NEB,
Paraphrase: LB, Message

The manuscripts available are the Byzantine type, or Alexandrian, or ecletic. The 1901 ASV is the prime example of the Wesrcott-Hort type text(Alexandrian). Modern Bibles have not used W-H in years. The textype for modern Bibles is an eclectic text, using the best readings of all types. The Byzantine and the eclectic texts agree 98%.

Instead of saying the modern Bibles 'delete' verses, how 'bout maybe the KJV has ADDED verses?

The NKJV is a vastly better translation than the KJV. It is an exact replica of the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV tanslators used; and, IMHO, the Geneva Bible, now available, is a better translation than is the KJV. The NKJV is at times more literal than the NASB.

Anything using inclusive gender language is not as accurate as a Bible using traditional language. These Bibles pluralise single verbs to be inclusive. IMO, it all stems from the feminist movement. I hope Zondervan learned a lesson with their miserable TNIV, which went over like the Hindenburg. It will be interesting to see what they do wiith the NIV revision which is due out next year. If they take it in a gender-inclusive direction, they might as well....FUHGEDDABOUDDIT!!!!!

The rapidly diminishing King James Only movement will dwindle away in time; so, let them fulminate as they will, cuz nobody's listening.

I will say, when you get bogged down in the OT, I can't think of anything better to smooth things out than the NLT. Really makes things come alive. Otherwise, I personally prefer the ESV.

 

[Boanerges]

While I love reading many different flavors (translations) of the Bible I do have a few favorites. It can be generally stated that the older the manuscript the smaller the manuscript and thus some of the newer translations do not seem to contain everything in the KJV.

 

[ronniechoate34]

The rapidly diminishing King James Only movement will dwindle away in time; so, let them fulminate as they will, cuz nobody's listening.

Let me ask you a question. Or four.


Do you believe that God raised up men to hate the Received Text? Are you telling me that God despised the fact that the original translators had a Received Text only policy and refused all other manuscripts? Why would God bless any work in the way that He so obviously blessed the Authorized Bible and then ultimately wind up despising it so much that He raised men who would loathe the Received Text, men that would secretly seek to replace the current standard Bible bible using corrupted manuscripts and ultimately publish their own bible?


That all sounds like the works of satan to me. You know dividing the church and with holding God's Word, despising purity of truth, etc. I can't be so quick to attribute the works of satan to the Holy Ghost myself. These so called bibles have actually done a lot of damage to the churches and the faith over the last hundred years.


Also, since you believe in the moral decay of mankind, when do you believe that the following passages of scripture will take place? By that I mean when will it get worse than it is. Or do you believe it's getting better?


2Tm:3:12: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Tm:3:13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


BTW,,,that says all scripture. I sure wouldn't think it wise for anyone to take away any scripture or add to it at all.


Re:22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Re:22:19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Re:22:20: He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Re:22:21: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

 

[Free]

That all sounds like the works of satan to me. You know dividing the church and with holding God's Word, despising purity of truth, etc. I can't be so quick to attribute the works of satan to the Holy Ghost myself. These so called bibles have actually done a lot of damage to the churches and the faith over the last hundred years.

And yet, among the most divisive and damaging things in the church in recent times has been the KJVO movement.

BTW,,,that says all scripture. I sure wouldn't think it wise for anyone to take away any scripture or add to it at all.

The errors here are the implications that only the KJV has neither added nor subtracted, and that other versions have added and subtracted to what was originally written.

 

[ronniechoate34]

That all sounds like the works of satan to me. You know dividing the church and with holding God's Word, despising purity of truth, etc. I can't be so quick to attribute the works of satan to the Holy Ghost myself. These so called bibles have actually done a lot of damage to the churches and the faith over the last hundred years.

And yet, among the most divisive and damaging things in the church in recent times has been the KJVO movement.

Your problem is that your scope is limited. Try to think back to a time before these "new age" bibles existed. Then you can make a sober decision about such matters as this.