Best Bible translation?

[jasonwill2]

One that is most true to the original texts, which is the best? I don't trust say NIV or KJV, I want something that is better for analyzing the books in a less Theological orientation and in a more literary one.

Any suggestions?

 

[katielou]

The New Revised Standard Version is used a lot. I perfer it to others and the NRSV was actually a text book of mine in college.

 

[fallingblood]

I second the NRSV. I would venture to say that most scholars would also back that Bible.

 

[Levite]

I don't know if there's a "best" whole Tanach translation, but the best translation of the Torah (Pentateuch) is Everett Fox's "The Five Books of Moses." After that, probably Robert Alter's "The Five Books of Moses."

 

[jasonwill2]

What about the "Complete Jewish Bible"? Looking in Job 1:6 (just as a random test run) I like so far how it translates (puts Adversary instead of Satan, mentions Adonai).

...Actually when I think of it I might benefit from looking at translations that are not strictly marketed at Christians.

 

[jasonwill2]

I don't know if there's a "best" whole Tanach translation, but the best translation of the Torah (Pentateuch) is Everett Fox's "The Five Books of Moses." After that, probably Robert Alter's "The Five Books of Moses."

Thank you, I will look into that.

 

[Pegg]

One that is most true to the original texts, which is the best? I don't trust say NIV or KJV, I want something that is better for analyzing the books in a less Theological orientation and in a more literary one.

Any suggestions?

our New World Translation is a very good translation which renders the verses as literally as possible.

some comments about our translation:

Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel: “This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”

British Bible scholar Alexander Thomson noted that the New World Translation is outstanding in accurately rendering the Greek present tense. To illustrate: Ephesians 5:25 reads “Husbands, continue loving your wives” instead of saying merely “Husbands, love your wife.” as the King James Version renders it. “No other version appears to have exhibited this fine feature with such fulness and frequency,” said Thomson

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the Greek “New Testament” in An American Translation, wrote in a letter dated December 8, 1950: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”

“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson, in The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7.

“The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963.

“The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed—a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966.

“This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. . . . After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary text. . . . The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate. . . . In sum, when a Witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to bring him in and place an order.”—From a review of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, by Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska, appearing in The Classical Journal, April–May 1974.


You can find the NWT online from jw.org or we can even send you a copy for free if you are interested...just pm me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

our New World Translation is a very good translation which renders the verses as literally as possible.

I understand that you have people who support this translation. So does every other translation. I'm curious how someone who can't read the languages in which the texts are written can state anything meaningful about the accuracy of a translation?

Additionally, there is no generally accepted method when it comes to translations. The more literal a translation, the more unreadable it becomes.

 

[Pegg]

I understand that you have people who support this translation. So does every other translation. I'm curious how someone who can't read the languages in which the texts are written can state anything meaningful about the accuracy of a translation?

Additionally, there is no generally accepted method when it comes to translations. The more literal a translation, the more unreadable it becomes.

all the research that our translation committee used to come to the renderings in the NWT are available to us. We are not left without evidence of why a word is translated in a particular way...and we make use of that information just as anyone else can.

I did a short course in biblical hebrew a couple of years ago through an online jewish school and i didnt learn anything new. I also cross checked the WT information with what i was learning, and the WT information was even more detailed then my course information. Our brothers have done their research very well and it shows in their rendering of the NWT.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

all the research that our translation committee used to come to the renderings in the NWT are available to us.

I'm going to assume "our" refers to your church/faith (but please correct me if I'm wrong). I have no doubt that you are largely correct. However, once again the same can be said for other translations. For example, the roman catholic church has an enormous amount of literature concerning their translations.

We are not left without evidence of why a word is translated in a particular way...and we make use of that information just as anyone else can.

I'm not saying that any particular church/sect is without the means to do what you describe. I'm saying that it doesn't really matter. If you can't read Greek and Hebrew (and to a lesser extent Aramaic), then you can't judge the accuracy or quality of one translation vs. another.

I did a short course in biblical hebrew a couple of years ago through an online jewish school and i didnt learn anything new.

Then either you are an expert in biblical hebrew, or like virtually everyone else on the planet a course in a language isn't remotely adequate to understand it.

I also cross checked the WT information with what i was learning, and the WT information was even more detailed then my course information. Our brothers have done their research very well and it shows in their rendering of the NWT.

There is no good "rendering" of the texts behind the bible. The best method, apart from learning the languages, is to read several translations.

And I'm not commenting on the research behind the NWT here. I'm questioning your capacity to compare its quality compared to others when you aren't capable of reading the original languages. Also, there is the issue of what makes a good translation, which isn't a trivial problem.

 

[Pegg]

I'm going to assume "our" refers to your church/faith (but please correct me if I'm wrong). I have no doubt that you are largely correct. However, once again the same can be said for other translations. For example, the roman catholic church has an enormous amount of literature concerning their translations.


I'm not saying that any particular church/sect is without the means to do what you describe. I'm saying that it doesn't really matter. If you can't read Greek and Hebrew (and to a lesser extent Aramaic), then you can't judge the accuracy or quality of one translation vs. another.



Then either you are an expert in biblical hebrew, or like virtually everyone else on the planet a course in a language isn't remotely adequate to understand it.


There is no good "rendering" of the texts behind the bible. The best method, apart from learning the languages, is to read several translations.

And I'm not commenting on the research behind the NWT here. I'm questioning your capacity to compare its quality compared to others when you aren't capable of reading the original languages. Also, there is the issue of what makes a good translation, which isn't a trivial problem.

well i certainly trust our brothers over and above anyone else.

For anyone who doesnt read the original language, trust in the translators is paramount.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

well i certainly trust our brothers over and above anyone else.

For anyone who doesnt read the original language, trust in the translators is paramount.

I don't read russian, but there are a number of works which are written in Russian which I wish to read. At some point, I hope to learn Russian, but until then I have to rely on translations. But I don't have to rely on one translation unless there is only one.

There is no work with more translations, commentaries, commentaries on translations, etc., than the bible. There is no need to trust one translation, nor is this a good thing to do. Translations are necessarily wrong. Especially when original language is not related to the target language and/or the text is seperated from the target language in time/culture. Greek is Indo-European, but the culture behind it is quite different than ours. Hebrew is not Indo-European. In short, while a translation of some work written in French, Italian, German, or really any modern IE language can approximate fairly closely the original, the bible is an entirely different story. So why rely on a single translation?

 

[Pegg]

I don't read russian, but there are a number of works which are written in Russian which I wish to read. At some point, I hope to learn Russian, but until then I have to rely on translations. But I don't have to rely on one translation unless there is only one.

There is no work with more translations, commentaries, commentaries on translations, etc., than the bible. There is no need to trust one translation, nor is this a good thing to do. Translations are necessarily wrong. Especially when original language is not related to the target language and/or the text is seperated from the target language in time/culture. Greek is Indo-European, but the culture behind it is quite different than ours. Hebrew is not Indo-European. In short, while a translation of some work written in French, Italian, German, or really any modern IE language can approximate fairly closely the original, the bible is an entirely different story. So why rely on a single translation?

the WT use many different translations for different things. You'll often find different translations in use in the Watchtower and Awake publications...and the KJV used to be the main bible that we used before they made the NWT.

so yes, you are quite right, we dont need to rely on just one translation, and other translations are not necessarily wrong either. But it does help to actually research the original hebrew and greek words being used... that background knowledge can mean the difference in how a verse is understood.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But it does help to actually research the original hebrew and greek words being used

That might actually do more harm than good. Not only are words polysemous, but what a "word" is in one language doesn't necessarily correspond to a word in another. For example, in English we have prepositions like "to", "for", "with", "by", etc. In Hebrew and Greek, much of the meaning from these are inherent to certain forms of a particular word. There are other problems as well. Take the word "word". In the famous opening to John, we have logos. But this doesn't mean "word". It can mean anything from "something spoken" to "some account". English tends to borrow or create new words rather than extend the meaning of available words. RSVP, orthodonist, mea culpa, carpe diem, et cetera/etc., ibid, et al., and on and on. English borrows, steals, and reinvents words and constructions from other languages and readily creates novel words/constructions. Other languages do not. And some, like Greek, do the opposite: a single word will represent a vast range of meaning depending on context and form (case/inflection).

It's very easy to look up a word in Strong's. And it's almost a sure thing that you will end up knowing less than you did beforehand, as what you read will not only be inaccurate, it will tend to make you think you now know something more when in reality you understand less.

 

[Pegg]

That might actually do more harm than good. Not only are words polysemous, but what a "word" is in one language doesn't necessarily correspond to a word in another. For example, in English we have prepositions like "to", "for", "with", "by", etc. In Hebrew and Greek, much of the meaning from these are inherent to certain forms of a particular word. There are other problems as well. Take the word "word". In the famous opening to John, we have logos. But this doesn't mean "word". It can mean anything from "something spoken" to "some account". English tends to borrow or create new words rather than extend the meaning of available words. RSVP, orthodonist, mea culpa, carpe diem, et cetera/etc., ibid, et al., and on and on. English borrows, steals, and reinvents words and constructions from other languages and readily creates novel words/constructions. Other languages do not. And some, like Greek, do the opposite: a single word will represent a vast range of meaning depending on context and form (case/inflection).

It's very easy to look up a word in Strong's. And it's almost a sure thing that you will end up knowing less than you did beforehand, as what you read will not only be inaccurate, it will tend to make you think you now know something more when in reality you understand less.

yeah quite right.. I would not trust myself to look up a word and choose a meaning for it. But I do use the research tools provided by the WT society. One of our study tools is 'Insight on the Scriptures' volumes. In there we can lookup all sorts of words and their meanings... one example is 'logos' :


The term “word” in the Scriptures most frequently translates the Hebrew and Greek words da·var′ and lo′gos. These words in the majority of cases refer to an entire thought, saying, or statement rather than simply to an individual term or unit of speech. (In Greek a ‘single word’ is expressed by rhe′ma [Mt 27:14], though it, too, can mean a saying or spoken matter.) Any message from the Creator, such as one uttered through a prophet, is “the word of God.” In a few places Lo′gos (meaning “Word&#8221 is a title given to Jesus Christ.
The Word of God. “The word of Jehovah” is an expression that, with slight variations, occurs hundreds of times in the Scriptures. By “the word of Jehovah” the heavens were created. God said the word and it was accomplished. “God proceeded to say: ‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light.” (Ps 33:6; Ge 1:3) It should not be understood from this that Jehovah himself does no work. (Joh 5:17) But he does have myriads of angels that respond to his word and carry out his will.—Ps 103:20.
Creation, animate and inanimate, is subject to God’s word, and can be used by him to accomplish his purposes. (Ps 103:20; 148:8) His word is dependable; what God promises he also remembers to do. (De 9:5; Ps 105:42-45) As he himself has said, his word “will last to time indefinite”; it will never return without accomplishing its purpose.—Isa 40:8; 55:10, 11; 1Pe 1:25.
Jehovah is a communicative God, in that he reveals to his creatures in a variety of ways what his will and purposes are. God’s words were spoken, doubtless through an angel, to such men as Adam, Noah, and Abraham. (Ge 3:9-19; 6:13; 12:1) At times he used holy men like Moses and Aaron to make known his purposes. (Ex 5:1) “Every word” that Moses commanded Israel was in effect the word of God to them. (De 12:32) God also spoke through the mouth of prophets such as Elisha and Jeremiah, and prophetesses such as Deborah.—2Ki 7:1; Jer 2:1, 2; Jg 4:4-7.
Many of the divine commandments were committed to writing from the time of Moses forward. The Decalogue, commonly called the Ten Commandments and known in the Hebrew Scriptures as “the Ten Words,” was first delivered orally and later ‘written by the finger of God’ on stone tablets. (Ex 31:18; 34:28; De 4:13) These commandments were called the “Words” at Deuteronomy 5:22.—See TEN WORDS.
Joshua wrote additional “words in the book of God’s law” under divine inspiration, and this was true with other faithful Bible writers. (Jos 24:26; Jer 36:32) Eventually all such writings were collected together and made up what is called the Sacred Scriptures or Holy Bible. “All Scripture . . . inspired of God” would include, today, all the canonical Biblical books. (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 1:20, 21) In the Christian Greek Scriptures, God’s inspired word is often spoken of as simply “the word.”—Jas 1:22; 1Pe 2:2.
There are many synonyms for God’s word. For example, in Psalm 119, where references to Jehovah’s “word(s)” occur more than 20 times, synonyms are found in poetic parallelisms—such terms as law, reminders, orders, regulations, commandments, judicial decisions, statutes, and sayings of Jehovah. This also shows that the expression “word” means a complete thought or message.
The word of God is also described in a number of other ways that give it breadth and meaning. It is “the ‘word’ [or “saying” (rhe′ma)] of faith” (Ro 10:8, Int), “the word [or message (form of lo′gos)] of righteousness” (Heb 5:13), and “the word of the reconciliation” (2Co 5:19). God’s word or message is like “seed,” which, if planted in good soil, brings forth much fruitage (Lu 8:11-15); his sayings are also said to ‘run with speed.’—Ps 147:15.

this is only the first part of the entry for logos...there are also other subheadings such as:
Preachers and Teachers of the Word
The Power of God’s Word and Spirit.
“The Word” as a Title
“The Word was a god.”

and the final entry on 'Logos' looks at Why God’s Son is called “the Word.” as follow:
A title often describes the function served or the duty performed by the bearer. So it was with the title Kal-Hatzé, meaning “the voice or word of the king,” that was given an Abyssinian officer. Based on his travels from 1768 to 1773, James Bruce describes the duties of the Kal-Hatzé as follows. He stood by a window covered with a curtain through which, unseen inside, the king spoke to this officer. He then conveyed the message to the persons or party concerned. Thus the Kal-Hatzé acted as the word or voice of the Abyssinian king.—Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, London, 1790, Vol. III, p. 265; Vol. IV, p. 76.
Recall, too, that God made Aaron the word or “mouth” of Moses, saying: “He must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.”—Ex 4:16.
In a similar way God’s firstborn Son doubtless served as the Mouth, or Spokesman, for his Father, the great King of Eternity. He was God’s Word of communication for conveying information and instructions to the Creator’s other spirit and human sons. It is reasonable to think that prior to Jesus’ coming to earth, on many of the occasions when God communicated with humans he used the Word as his angelic mouthpiece. (Ge 16:7-11; 22:11; 31:11; Ex 3:2-5; Jg 2:1-4; 6:11, 12; 13:3) Since the angel that guided the Israelites through the wilderness had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ he may have been God’s Son, the Word.—Ex 23:20-23; see JESUS CHRIST (Prehuman Existence).
Showing that Jesus continued to serve as his Father’s Spokesman, or Word, during his earthly ministry, he told his listeners: “I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. . . . Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me them, so I speak them.”—Joh 12:49, 50; 14:10; 7:16, 17.

So the WT have provided us with some very good study tools to really get the sense of the scriptures...this is why I trust their translation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One of our study tools is 'Insight on the Scriptures' volumes. In there we can lookup all sorts of words and their meanings... one example is 'logos' :
...
So the WT have provided us with some very good study tools to really get the sense of the scriptures...this is why I trust their translation.

The tools you refer to are not only dependent on the works written by classicists, biblical scholars, and others who have contributed to scholarship on biblical languages spanning several centuries, they provide much less information. Not only are much of the linguistic and semantic aspects of the words, grammar, and constructions from the langauges absent, things are added which have nothing to do with the study of the languages. Even people who can't read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic can still use the LSJ, BDAG, BDD, and other respected lexicons. Even certain reference grammars can be useful, and even if we limit these to those written in English like Smyth, Goodwin, Moulton, BDF, Denniston, etc. Yet none of these are tools specific to the WT. Instead, the WT relies on these.

 

[Pegg]

The tools you refer to are not only dependent on the works written by classicists, biblical scholars, and others who have contributed to scholarship on biblical languages spanning several centuries, they provide much less information. Not only are much of the linguistic and semantic aspects of the words, grammar, and constructions from the langauges absent, things are added which have nothing to do with the study of the languages. Even people who can't read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic can still use the LSJ, BDAG, BDD, and other respected lexicons. Even certain reference grammars can be useful, and even if we limit these to those written in English like Smyth, Goodwin, Moulton, BDF, Denniston, etc. Yet none of these are tools specific to the WT. Instead, the WT relies on these.

of course, they rely on the scholarship from many sources...and use that scholarship.

the NWT is a testament to that fact. The writing committee do not attempt to be scholars nor do they claim to be....but they are very good researchers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One that is most true to the original texts, ...

Which ones would those be?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know if there's a "best" whole Tanach translation, but the best translation of the Torah (Pentateuch) is Everett Fox's "The Five Books of Moses." After that, probably Robert Alter's "The Five Books of Moses."

I would probably flip the order, but an excellent answer nonetheless. Alter's other translations and commentary are similarly excellent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did a short course in biblical hebrew a couple of years ago through an online jewish school and i didnt learn anything new.

That was a truly classic statement!