Which Translation is the best.

[Free]

The more I read my NIV, the more things I find missing in it. I suppose this translation needs more prayer than the others.

Of course, that just begs the question as to whether the "missing" things are actually missing. If they shouldn't have been there in the first place, it could hardly be said they are missing.

 

[Edward]

Of course, that just begs the question as to whether the "missing" things are actually missing. If they shouldn't have been there in the first place, it could hardly be said they are missing.

Yes it can. Some of the stuff that was missing, I took to the concordance and it was there in the original language, but only missing in the NIV. So unless you don't like the Greek & Hebrew, you are incorrect in your statement.

I don't remember offhand which verses they were, I did this quite awhile ago, but I remember that comparing with the KJV and then the concordance was part of my loose investigation that I was doing at the time. My friend came over and made a big deal of showing me a missing verse in the NIV, and so I did a search about missing verses in the NIV and found that there were more.

 

[Free]

Yes it can. Some of the stuff that was missing, I took to the concordance and it was there in the original language, but only missing in the NIV. So unless you don't like the Greek & Hebrew, you are incorrect in your statement.

Actually, that is precisely my point. It is presumptuous to think that the manuscripts behind the KJV are correct. It's circular reasoning, the most often used fallacy used by KJVOists.

 

[Edward]

Actually, that is precisely my point. It is presumptuous to think that the manuscripts behind the KJV are correct. It's circular reasoning, the most often used fallacy used by KJVOists.

Presumptuous eh? Brother...He said His Word will never pass away. edited

 

[reba]

The small portions of the Geneva Bible i have read are interesting... Geneva Bible predates KJ by a few years....

 

[Obadiah]

Yes it can. Some of the stuff that was missing, I took to the concordance and it was there in the original language, but only missing in the NIV. So unless you don't like the Greek & Hebrew, you are incorrect in your statement.

The problem with that reasoning is that none of the documents we have, not even the Greek and Hebrew documents used are the original inspired scripture. We don't have that and none of the translators of any of our Bibles were inspired by God to make perfect translations of the real original scripture. When one version leaves something out that another older version has in it, there is a reason the translators felt it was incorrect and they many times give a footnote explaining their reasoning. That doesn't necessarily mean they were right, but also doesn't mean they are wrong either. Once again, not even what we tend to think of today as "the original Greek and Hebrew" documents really are the original inspired scripture written by the original writers.

 

[King James]

Here is a KJV/Geneva/Tyndale comparison: http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html
In nine chapters analyzed, the Geneva is more than 83% word for word Tyndale, and the KJV is more than 81% word for word Tyndale.

Another link of a similar nature:
http://www.pennuto.com/bible/bibtabl.htm

 

[Edward]

That may be so, Obadiah. I tend to not give it that much thought. I figure, God said his Word will never pass away, and if He wants me to seek Him, then it is sort of His responsibility to get His Word into my hand so that I can. I pray for illumination, and understand that what scripture says that we don't really need men to teach us, that the Holy Spirit will. Of course, we have to give Him something to work with, something to illuminate. So we read His Word. That's why I think that ultimately, the translation means little, or at least less than we think it does.

We're supposed to do our part, and read the best translation that we can of course. If there's a version that blatantly leave stuff out (like the NIV) then yeah, read a different version. But I think it's also important to not over analyze it, and get so hung up in trying to figure out what's safe to read that we neglect reading and praying. The Lord will deliver. His Spirit will bear witness with our spirit, and we will learn. Even if it's from the dreaded...(pick your translation here)...

 

[Free]

Presumptuous eh? Brother...He said His Word will never pass away. edited

Right, but that has nothing to do with the discussion. It is a matter of understanding the manuscripts, namely that there are different ones which translations are based on. It is an error in reasoning to think that just because this or that version has some verses that some other ones don't, that therefore the latter ones are missing those verses. Given that we have more manuscript evidence now then when the KJV was first translated, I'm pretty sure that the KJV is not the most accurate translation.

 

[Edward]

So which translation do you like/think is the most accurate, and why?

 

[Obadiah]

That may be so, Obadiah. I tend to not give it that much thought. I figure, God said his Word will never pass away, and if He wants me to seek Him, then it is sort of His responsibility to get His Word into my hand so that I can. I pray for illumination, and understand that what scripture says that we don't really need men to teach us, that the Holy Spirit will. Of course, we have to give Him something to work with, something to illuminate. So we read His Word. That's why I think that ultimately, the translation means little, or at least less than we think it does.

We're supposed to do our part, and read the best translation that we can of course. If there's a version that blatantly leave stuff out (like the NIV) then yeah, read a different version. But I think it's also important to not over analyze it, and get so hung up in trying to figure out what's safe to read that we neglect reading and praying. The Lord will deliver. His Spirit will bear witness with our spirit, and we will learn. Even if it's from the dreaded...(pick your translation here)...

Yeah, I know God said he would preserve his word. I guess I would have to ask then, if this means he will preserve a written copy of the original inspired scriptures, which one is it? Not one single translator of any version has access to the original writings, and not one translator that I'm aware of even claimed to have been directly inspired by God to write His actual words in anything we have today. None of the actual people who did the actual translating ever claimed their work was perfect. They have all said all they could do was to faithfully translate to the best of their abilities the documents that they had access to at the time. So if it's true that the verse about preserving His word means in a printed paper and ink book, where is it?

Perhaps the true meaning of preserving His word is more in what you said above: "...understand that what scripture says that we don't really need men to teach us, that the Holy Spirit will." Perhaps that's the key. Rather than rely on any one translation as being better or worse, maybe what the passage is saying is that we should rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us God's true word as we read what we can in our imperfect translations.

 

[reba]

Obadiah

 

[evenifigoalone]

The small portions of the Geneva Bible i have read are interesting... Geneva Bible predates KJ by a few years....

I have a Bible app that allows me to read out of the Geneva Bible. And Tyndale's, too! For a while when using that app I'd look up a version in three different translations just to compare them. Geneva, KJV, and Young's Literal Translation. Wasn't much different between them, but then I didn't compare large portions.

 

[Edward]

Yeah, I know God said he would preserve his word. I guess I would have to ask then, if this means he will preserve a written copy of the original inspired scriptures, which one is it? Not one single translator of any version has access to the original writings, and not one translator that I'm aware of even claimed to have been directly inspired by God to write His actual words in anything we have today. None of the actual people who did the actual translating ever claimed their work was perfect. They have all said all they could do was to faithfully translate to the best of their abilities the documents that they had access to at the time. So if it's true that the verse about preserving His word means in a printed paper and ink book, where is it?

Perhaps the true meaning of preserving His word is more in what you said above: "...understand that what scripture says that we don't really need men to teach us, that the Holy Spirit will." Perhaps that's the key. Rather than rely on any one translation as being better or worse, maybe what the passage is saying is that we should rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us God's true word as we read what we can in our imperfect translations.

Yeah, that's it. It's all about the Holy Spirit brother.

<So if it's true that the verse about preserving His word means in a printed paper and ink book, where is it?>

Right. Where? Which one? There's where the faith comes in. This is God's responsibility, don't you think? Ours is to seek, knock, pray, study to show ourselves approved. God will deliver.

The first bible that was slipped into Edwards hand was a KJV bible. I got used to the language, and I like it. So wherein should I worry about more and questioning everything. Just read and pray Edward. God is there and He will reveal Himself.

 

[reba]

Which translation is the most accurate i dont know i have seen some that IMO should not have been printed... My favorite for many reasons is KJ

One reason KJ is my favorite i can hear my daddy's voice very often when i read it... not very spiritual although a loving memory

 

[evenifigoalone]

So which translation do you like/think is the most accurate, and why?

I don't have an opinion about which translation is best. I'm fine with reading out of or quoting from just about any major, established translation. I like reading from different translations, and comparing translations.

I've used the KJV most of my life, so have no trouble with it. My mom is KJVO, so she insists I only quote and read from the KJV during family altar. And I respect her request.
To my knowledge, there are two main camps: those that feel that the TR (Textus Receptus, which the KJV, NKJV, Geneva, etc uses) are the more accurate manuscripts, and those that feel that the MT (Majority Text) are the more accurate. (And Young's Literal Translation, I believe, combines both.)
I don't fall into either camp on which is better, the answer to that is shrouded in history. But I don't feel that any major translation leaves anything important out, from what I have read. They all contain Jesus, the gospel, historical information, and the same doctrinal information. (And yes I've heard all the arguments about missing verses and such--there are logical explanations.)

 

[reba]

Why questdriven sounds as if you have studied this a bit... nice post on the topic...

 

[Obadiah]

This is why I have such a problem with those of the KJV only cult (and yes, I have good logical reasons for referring to the hard core types as a cult) that refer to other translations of God's word by such derogatory terms as "perversion" and "tool of Satan". I've noticed it's only the KJV only who are so militantly disrespectful of other translations of God's word and I fear for the day that they will have to stand before God and answer for this if they are wrong. I sure wouldn't want to have to stand before the God who is powerful enough to create all the universe in all it's immensity by just saying a word and it appeared, and try to explain why I kept calling His Bible a "tool of Satan"!

 

[Edward]

This is why I have such a problem with those of the KJV only cult (and yes, I have good logical reasons for referring to the hard core types as a cult) that refer to other translations of God's word by such derogatory terms as "perversion" and "tool of Satan". I've noticed it's only the KJV only who are so militantly disrespectful of other translations of God's word and I fear for the day that they will have to stand before God and answer for this if they are wrong. I sure wouldn't want to have to stand before the God who is powerful enough to create all the universe in all it's immensity by just saying a word and it appeared, and try to explain why I kept calling His Bible a "tool of Satan"!

I hear ya' brother!
I am not KJV only at all. I just like the colorful language, and it was the one I was weaned on.

Question: Many here say the ESV is awesome. I've been becoming curious about it for that reason. Many of my friends that come around have a hard time listening to me read from the KJV and I was wondering...is that why a lot of people like the ESV so much? Why do YOU like it so much (to anyone).

<But I don't feel that any major translation leaves anything important out, from what I have read. They all contain Jesus, the gospel, historical information, and the same doctrinal information.>

Amen sister!

 

[evenifigoalone]

I've taken to using the ESV secondarily, although as to how close to the KJV it is I don't know. It's a "word for word" and "literal" translation, and apparently the website for it claims to be close to the KJV. Though to my knowledge it used the MT rather than the TR?