Which Translation is the best.

[Edward]

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?

Could you recommend it as a version to buy for an out and about bible?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Could you recommend it as a version to buy for an out and about bible?

I would, it's in modern English after all. But I'm no expert.

 

[Edward]

I would, it's in modern English after all. But I'm no expert.

Oh, I know. None of us are. But nevertheless, experience can be the best recommendation.

 

[King James]

Here are the Greek texts used for the Textus Receptus which the KJV used. They were copied from the 11th-15th century.

1eapXIIe: family 1; ap: Ia3
1rXIIAndreas
2eXII/XIIIKx (Wisse reports Kmix/Kx)
2apXIIIb1
4apXV
7pXI/XIIOp18

They belong to the Byzantine family of texts although these are late. Byzantine is also known as the majority text because they are what we have most of today. It is misleading because from the 1st century up to the 9th, the Alexandrian text is in the majority. The Textus Receptus does not represent the Majority Text as many believe. There are two compiled Majority Texts. Hodges & Farstad's Majority Text has has 1,838 differences from the Textus Receptus for instance. The only bible that used it for their translation is the World English Bible, which I recommend. http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testament-Psalms-Proverbs/dp/0970334427/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1392900830&sr=8-3&keywords=world english bibleIn the NKJV, in the footnotes, the M-text is the Hodges & Farstad's Majority Text, while the NU-text is the Nestle Aland and the United Bible Society text. The other majority text is Robinson and Pierpont Majority Text. There are two editions of this text. The only bible's that use this text I the Analytical-Literal Translation 1,2,3, & D. I prefer the ALTD or the long name Analytical-Literal Translation Devotional version which is based off of the Robinson and Pierpont 2005 revision. http://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Literal-Translation-Devotional-Gary-Zeolla/dp/1105603881/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1392900812&sr=8-4&keywords=analytical literal translation These compiled Majority Texts also have differences. https://www.triviumpursuit.com/downloads/robinson-pierpont-vs-hodges-farstad.pdf

The amazon links are the versions that I have of these versions.


Text families:

 

[WIP]

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)...

Hi Edward,
I use the NIV quite often and would be interested in references to those missing verses. Particularly the ones you say are blatantly left out. Can you try to dig some up and share them please? Much appreciated.

 

[hhh]

Hi Edward,
I use the NIV quite often and would be interested in references to those missing verses. Particularly the ones you say are blatantly left out. Can you try to dig some up and share them please? Much appreciated.

I can think of a few off the top of my head... Mt. 17:11, Mt. 18:21 Mk. 9:44 & 9:46 How to cast out demons is missing: Prayer and fasting. The criteria for being baptized is missing from Acts 8:37. If you compare every instance of, "The Mighty God," you can see that titles of God are missing from some of the verses in the NIV, that are in the same verses in the AV, commonly known as the KJV. The NIV was written using the same Greek as the New World Translation, the JW Bible; so, if you have a NWT you can look for the minuses that show there are verses missing, those verses will be missing the NIV and many other translations too. If you write down all of the missing verses, you can see a pretty interesting message.

 

[WIP]

I looked up those verses for fun. Please understand that I am no Bible scholar and my intention is not to defend the NIV but only understand what the concern is.

I should also note that my preferred translation is the NKJV as I find it much more readable than the KJV. I also read from the KJV. I like all of them myself.

Matthew 17:11
KJV
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

NIV
Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.

The NIV does not omit this verse. The only thing I see different is the interchanged use of Elias and Elijah. The way I understand it, Elias is the Greek form of Elijah.

Matthew 18:21
KJV
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

NIV
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

I don’t see where v21 is missing in the NIV.

Mark 9:44 and 9:46
KJV
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

NIV
V44 Footnote: Some manuscripts include here the words of verse 48.
V46 Footnote: Some manuscripts include here the words of verse 48.

I don’t see the problem aside from the possibility that if Jesus did in fact repeat the phrase three times, then there is a loss of emphasis. Since all the manuscripts don’t agree, how does one make that determination? The translators of the KJV chose to include them.

Acts 8:37
KJV
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NIV
Footnote: Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Here again, the manuscripts don’t all agree so as a translator one must choose to either include the verse or not.

As I read through this thread and others like it, I hear animosity toward the NIV as if the translators were intentionally deceptive. If that were truly the case, why would they include the footnotes to explain the differences? I am not seeing any deception or "blatant" disregard going on here. What am I not catching?

 

[Obadiah]

I looked up those verses for fun. Please understand that I am no Bible scholar and my intention is not to defend the NIV but only understand what the concern is.

I should also note that my preferred translation is the NKJV as I find it much more readable than the KJV. I also read from the KJV. I like all of them myself.

Matthew 17:11
KJV
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

NIV
Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.

The NIV does not omit this verse. The only thing I see different is the interchanged use of Elias and Elijah. The way I understand it, Elias is the Greek form of Elijah.

Matthew 18:21
KJV
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

NIV
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

I don’t see where v21 is missing in the NIV.

Mark 9:44 and 9:46
KJV
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

NIV
V44 Footnote: Some manuscripts include here the words of verse 48.
V46 Footnote: Some manuscripts include here the words of verse 48.

I don’t see the problem aside from the possibility that if Jesus did in fact repeat the phrase three times, then there is a loss of emphasis. Since all the manuscripts don’t agree, how does one make that determination? The translators of the KJV chose to include them.

Acts 8:37
KJV
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NIV
Footnote: Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Here again, the manuscripts don’t all agree so as a translator one must choose to either include the verse or not.

As I read through this thread and others like it, I hear animosity toward the NIV as if the translators were intentionally deceptive. If that were truly the case, why would they include the footnotes to explain the differences? I am not seeing any deception or "blatant" disregard going on here. What am I not catching?

What you are seeing here is typical of the KJVO arguments. They just don't hold water and some are just outright false. Many KJV only types have simply and unquestioningly heard these arguments over and over among their like minded group of KJV Only friends or congregation, or read these arguments from KJVO websites that supposedly teach them how to argue with those of us that are not of the same mindset. They never really look into whether or not these arguments they have learned were true with any kind of open mind. Then they repeat these arguments either in person or on social media like here. Normally if someone calls them out on this, they either refuse to answer and disappear or they create some huge smoke screen designed to hide and take everyone's attention away from their being called out on their error.

I've used the KJV all my Christian life and have no problem with it at all. In fact, for a bout 10 years I attended a strongly KJV only church. It was the lies I was being told by certain fanatical members of this church that opened my eyes to the growing cult of KJV onlyists who are spreading many falsehoods similar the the ones you point out above. When I saw what was happening, it turned me off to the KJV for some time. Now I use it as just one of many Bible translations that I compare to each other when looking for the meaning of certain sections of scripture, and I certainly don't give it any more weight than any others.

 

[reba]

If a persons heart is moved to the Lord from a verse printed on a Hallmark card it is still the Word of God

 

[reba]

What am I not catching?

that ol pentecostal fire?

 

[hhh]

I'm sorry WIP. I am just going by an old memory; I think I meant, Mt 17:21, and 18:11.
I wasn't trying to argue any point. I only posted that in response to a question. I believe the copyright says it all; I would not want to stand in front of God, and claim all of the rights to his word, or to be caught leading Jesus' sheep into a Bible which belongs to a corporation: but, it is written, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Ps. 19:1-3
And, There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 1 Co. 14:10

 

[RevSRE]

OH Have it ALL!
Introduction to Biblical languages: How to use Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek resources form www.biblesupport.com AND E-sword

View attachment 4097 King James ....................New American Standard.....English standard...........Todays NIV.................Textus Receptus............Nestle Aland.................Robertson Pierpont
..... ........................................................................................................................................................Strongs # Robertson............................................Strong # Robertson
...............................................................................................................................................................................Morphology...........................................................Morphology

 

[evenifigoalone]

There are pros and cons to copyrights. One of the pros is that no one can edit the work to suit their own purposes. It's not all bad, whether the translators and publishers did it for the wrong purposes or not.
The KJV is too old to be copyrighted and is public domain now. Copyrights don't last forever, no more than 75 years last I heard. Did they even have copyrights in 1611? If they had, would the KJV have been copyrighted for a time?
I forgot the name of the guy who put together the TR from various manuscripts, but from my research he was certainly paid to do it. I doubt that the team who translated the KJV did it for free.

 

[chessman]

There are pros and cons to copyrights. One of the pros is that no one can edit the work to suit their own purposes.
. Did they even have copyrights in 1611?

I've often wondered if a disadvantage of copyrighting a Bible translation is that you force new translatiions into being 'different' to avoid copyright infringements. In otherwords it seems to me that sometimes they just intentionally change the arrangment or word choice (knowing that a previous version's is better) because they have to. But I don't know if the rules for 'translations' are any different than original works. I doubt it.

In 1611, they (we) didn't care about human rights (slavery), much less intellectual property rights.

 

[reba]

Not everyone had a printer next to the computer in 1611

 

[chessman]

Not everyone had a printer next to the computer in 1611

They probably couldn't afford the ink anyway. Wow it's expensive. Printed Bibles cost less than an ink cartridge. I don't get why.

Which Translation Is The Best? The one you read the most!

 

[Obadiah]

I've often wondered if a disadvantage of copyrighting a Bible translation is that you force new translatiions into being 'different' to avoid copyright infringements. In otherwords it seems to me that sometimes they just intentionally change the arrangment or word choice (knowing that a previous version's is better) because they have to. But I don't know if the rules for 'translations' are any different than original works. I doubt it.

In 1611, they (we) didn't care about human rights (slavery), much less intellectual property rights.

Has anyone ever seen any actual proof that this has happened. Ive heard this line of reasoning before to support the claim that all the non KJV Bibles are bad, but have never seen anyone offer any real evidence that this actually happened. Lacking any solid evidence to support this accusation, I think it's just conjecture made up by those who want to discredit anyone using a Bible that they don't personally approve of.

 

[Edward]

Hi Edward,
I use the NIV quite often and would be interested in references to those missing verses. Particularly the ones you say are blatantly left out. Can you try to dig some up and share them please? Much appreciated.

I spent a couple days (off and on) on it before but I didn't really take any notes on it. I'll see what I can dig up.

 

[MysticalJourney]

Someone asked about why some of us like ESV over other Bibles. In Seminary, in Hebrew, we compared the various versions to the actual Hebrew. It only took a few weeks of translating to realize the ESV was closest to the original language. That is verb tenses, word order, and actual word usage. I have done a lot of translating of the Greek, and the same thing applies. I have an ESV study, and it has very good notes, which point out the variations, esp. when the words are not in the earliest manuscripts.

The problem with the Majority Texts or the Byzantine, is the only reason they are in the majority, is because the Greeks still spoke Greek, so they continued to reproduce the largest amount of manuscripts in that language, whereas other cultures translated into their languages. However, the later Greeks also liked to "embellish" the earlier texts, and that is why the later manuscripts have so many transcriptional errors. The KJV used those later manuscripts, which just have too many mistakes to be of value. More modern versions go back to the earlier texts, and translate them, instead of the later embellished Byzantine texts. I read from Nestle Aland, which puts all the variations and codes them to the particular manuscripts. That way I get the whole picture of where the variations crept in. Even so, I think most modern Bibles truly deliver the gospel. ESV can be very stilted. It does not follow the grammar as precisely as KJV, which is why so many people think KJV is poetic. It is actually because both Greek and to a lesser extent Hebrew have radically different word order than modern English. KJV often seems like a pretty turn of phrase, when it is in fact just following the original word order. No poetry there!
I am not against KJV, I memorized many verses in Sunday School when I was a young child, and those verses did not return void - I remembered them, and God saved me. In fact, it was nice to have consistence in memory verses. I think the modern versions have driven people away from memorizing, which to me is hiding God's Word in your heart. However, I still prefer to read a translation I know translates the original languages better than any other version. So that is ESV, after so much translating and comparing, I am pretty much convinced that it does the best job!

 

[Edward]

Someone asked about why some of us like ESV over other Bibles. In Seminary, in Hebrew, we compared the various versions to the actual Hebrew. It only took a few weeks of translating to realize the ESV was closest to the original language. That is verb tenses, word order, and actual word usage. I have done a lot of translating of the Greek, and the same thing applies. I have an ESV study, and it has very good notes, which point out the variations, esp. when the words are not in the earliest manuscripts.

The problem with the Majority Texts or the Byzantine, is the only reason they are in the majority, is because the Greeks still spoke Greek, so they continued to reproduce the largest amount of manuscripts in that language, whereas other cultures translated into their languages. However, the later Greeks also liked to "embellish" the earlier texts, and that is why the later manuscripts have so many transcriptional errors. The KJV used those later manuscripts, which just have too many mistakes to be of value. More modern versions go back to the earlier texts, and translate them, instead of the later embellished Byzantine texts. I read from Nestle Aland, which puts all the variations and codes them to the particular manuscripts. That way I get the whole picture of where the variations crept in. Even so, I think most modern Bibles truly deliver the gospel. ESV can be very stilted. It does not follow the grammar as precisely as KJV, which is why so many people think KJV is poetic. It is actually because both Greek and to a lesser extent Hebrew have radically different word order than modern English. KJV often seems like a pretty turn of phrase, when it is in fact just following the original word order. No poetry there!
I am not against KJV, I memorized many verses in Sunday School when I was a young child, and those verses did not return void - I remembered them, and God saved me. In fact, it was nice to have consistence in memory verses. I think the modern versions have driven people away from memorizing, which to me is hiding God's Word in your heart. However, I still prefer to read a translation I know translates the original languages better than any other version. So that is ESV, after so much translating and comparing, I am pretty much convinced that it does the best job!

That was me. This is what I wanted to hear. Thank you brother.