This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What translation of the Bible is the most accurate?

#21IamvegitoPosted 1/31/2013 6:44:30 AM
NRSV is a good, literal translation.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#22LastManStandingPosted 1/31/2013 6:57:56 AM
Don't get the new American standard bibles. The people involved in the project the leader say they are in trouble with The Lord.
Labeled as one of the false Bibles
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#23IamvegitoPosted 1/31/2013 7:32:23 AM
From: LastManStanding | #022
Don't get the new American standard bibles. The people involved in the project the leader say they are in trouble with The Lord.
Labeled as one of the false Bibles

He isn't asking for a Papist Church Confirmed© Bible. He wants an accurate one.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#24ZeroXcusesPosted 1/31/2013 7:49:41 AM
ESV is unarguably the most accurate if you are going for a word-for-word translation.
---
Jesus saves; if you don't believe, you better hope you're right!
http://backloggery.com/zero_tolerance
#25Maverick3000Posted 1/31/2013 8:14:34 AM(edited)
NRSV is the most commonly used for academic work and study. ESV is essentially the conservative/evangelical answer to it and is essentially identical except with less gender neutral language and a more "Christian/Greek" translation of the Old Testament. Both are updates of the Revised Standard Version, so it essentially goes down to philosophy of translation and ideology of the reader of which is "better" (Mainline/Liberals read the NRSV; Fundamentalist/Evangelicals read the ESV).


As for other translations: the NASB is the most "accurate" to the point it is hard to understand and becomes "less accurate" so to speak. The NET Bible is great because it's free and they have an extensive series of footnotes, which allows you to see their methodology and other possible translations. NIV (and it the new updated version) is probably the easiest to read and understand while not going into complete transliteration but is probably the least accurate of this group. The KJV should really be avoided unless you just want to read pretty language. There are also specific Biblical translations for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and they are going to differ a bit.
---
we're not all geniuses like you Maverick. >_> - AWrulez
#26ZeroXcusesPosted 1/31/2013 9:04:04 AM
Maverick3000 posted...
NRSV is the most commonly used for academic work and study. ESV is essentially the conservative/evangelical answer to it and is essentially identical except with less gender neutral language and a more "Christian/Greek" translation of the Old Testament. Both are updates of the Revised Standard Version, so it essentially goes down to philosophy of translation and ideology of the reader of which is "better" (Mainline/Liberals read the NRSV; Fundamentalist/Evangelicals read the ESV).


As for other translations: the NASB is the most "accurate" to the point it is hard to understand and becomes "less accurate" so to speak. The NET Bible is great because it's free and they have an extensive series of footnotes, which allows you to see their methodology and other possible translations. NIV (and it the new updated version) is probably the easiest to read and understand while not going into complete transliteration but is probably the least accurate of this group. The KJV should really be avoided unless you just want to read pretty language. There are also specific Biblical translations for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and they are going to differ a bit.



By "academic," this poster means "in the field of 'religious studies'" as opposed to specialized "theology" schools. Guys like Dawkins and Hawkins study religion, but they are not trained theologians.

Always be cautious when taking advice from someone who divides exegesis into modern political polemics such as "liberal" and "conservative." Interpretation

I would agree that NIV is easier to read in terms of the modern translations. It is said to be a "thought for thought" translation (as opposed to the ESV's "word for word").

Lastly, also be cautious of the dismissal of the KJV because of its "archaic" language. The KJV is a REMARKABLE piece of literature in that it is actually more accurate in a "word for word" translation from Greek/Hebrew to English than the NIV..
---
Jesus saves; if you don't believe, you better hope you're right!
http://backloggery.com/zero_tolerance
#27actarusPosted 1/31/2013 9:33:21 AM(edited)
the_hedonist posted...
ESV or NRSV. NLT for poetry passages (Psalms, OT prophetic literature).

The NASB is the "most literal," but they tend to retain Greek sentence structure which is 100% different than English, thus it makes it fairly difficult to read at times.


The whole Bible is poetic
Here is a sample of the "Sermon on the Mount" in the Restored Holy Bible(2.3) Poetic layout 1.8

Compare the last words in every line
(secret/openly ,repetitions/much speaking, glory from men/reward , synagogues/hypocrites/seen by men, closet/door, Earth/Heaven, steal/steal, pray/pray ye, Him/them, face,faces,heart)


Mat 6:1 [Heavenly Reward 1].
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen by them:
otherwise ye have no reward from your Father who is in Heavens.
Mat 6:2 Therefore, when Thou do Thy alms, do not sound a trumpet before Thee,
as the hypocrites do, in the synagogues,
and in the streets, that they may have glory from men.
Amen I say to you, they have their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when Thou do alms, let not Thy left hand know what Thy right hand does:
Mat 6:4 That Thy alms may be in secret; and Thy Father who see in secret,
Himself will reward Thee openly.
Mat 6:5 [The correct way to pray].
And when Thou pray,
Thou shall not be as the hypocrites:
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues,
and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.
Amen I say to you, they have their reward.
Mat 6:6 But Thou, when Thou pray, enter into Thy closet,
and when Thou have shut Thy door,
pray to Thy Father who is in secret, and Thy Father who see in secret,
Himself will reward Thee openly.
Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions,
as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Mat 6:8 Therefore be ye not like them:
for your Father knows what things ye need before ye ask Him.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye:
[Lord's Prayer 1].

Mat 6:14 [Heavenly Reward 2].
For, if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Mat 6:16
Moreover, when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites,
of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces,
that they may appear to men to fast.
Amen I say to you, they have their reward.
Mat 6:17 But Thou, when Thou fastest, anoint Thy head, and wash Thy face;
Mat 6:18 That Thou may not appear to men to fast, but to Thy Father, who is in secret:
and Thy Father, who see in secret, shall reward Thee openly.
Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon Earth,
where moth and rust does corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven,
where neither moth nor rust does corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will be also your heart.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#28Maverick3000Posted 1/31/2013 10:03:14 AM
From: ZeroXcuses | #026
By "academic," this poster means "in the field of 'religious studies'" as opposed to specialized "theology" schools. Guys like Dawkins and Hawkins study religion, but they are not trained theologians.


Uh no, I am referring to actual seminary schools and similar irk. I don't even know what Dawkins and Hawkins use when they quote the Bible.

Always be cautious when taking advice from someone who divides exegesis into modern political polemics such as "liberal" and "conservative." Interpretation


Uh.. "liberal/conservative" dynamic has nothing to do with politics but actual interpretation style (Historical Criticism vs Biblical Literalism). This is pretty apparent when you hit the issue of gender neutral language which is one of the main points of contention between the two sides.

Lastly, also be cautious of the dismissal of the KJV because of its "archaic" language.


It's not dismissed because of the language; it's dismissed by the fact that it's manuscripts are outdated. And then there is the whole problem that a crapload of KJVs out there are actually bunk as they made some major edits to the actual text.
---
we're not all geniuses like you Maverick. >_> - AWrulez
#29IamvegitoPosted 1/31/2013 10:25:26 AM
From: Maverick3000 | #028
From: ZeroXcuses | #026
By "academic," this poster means "in the field of 'religious studies'" as opposed to specialized "theology" schools. Guys like Dawkins and Hawkins study religion, but they are not trained theologians.


Uh no, I am referring to actual seminary schools and similar irk. I don't even know what Dawkins and Hawkins use when they quote the Bible.

Always be cautious when taking advice from someone who divides exegesis into modern political polemics such as "liberal" and "conservative." Interpretation


Uh.. "liberal/conservative" dynamic has nothing to do with politics but actual interpretation style (Historical Criticism vs Biblical Literalism). This is pretty apparent when you hit the issue of gender neutral language which is one of the main points of contention between the two sides.

Lastly, also be cautious of the dismissal of the KJV because of its "archaic" language.


It's not dismissed because of the language; it's dismissed by the fact that it's manuscripts are outdated. And then there is the whole problem that a crapload of KJVs out there are actually bunk as they made some major edits to the actual text.

Thank you for responding to him before I had an aneurysm.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#30charey(Topic Creator)Posted 1/31/2013 10:32:40 AM
LastManStanding posted...
New American Bible is pretty good. Beware of New American Standard Bible which is not.
Also be aware of short Protestant Bible you want all 73 Books of the Bible and not 66

Why are you trying to make a controversy out of me asking about which version of the bible is accurate?

To everyone else thanks for the help, I will look into getting the NRSV.
---
I won't have it! I'm not having anyone talk about me in
the past tense! ~Squall Leonhart