My Bible's more correct than your Bible

rainbowchristianqld · Jul 27, 2005

I hope it's okay to ask this, as it's happened to me a couple of times.

I am currently reading an NIV Bible, but have recently been informed that it's (apparently) not as accurate as others e.g. NKJ

How are we (as English Speaking/Reading people) surposed to find a "Correct" Bible? Is 1 or more Translations of the Bible lying?
How can so many versions of the 1 book (such as below) vary so much with nearly every subject matter?

Share what version you read and why - it's gotta be more than "My Pastor told me it's the best one" or "I find it the easiest to understand/read" or "It condones/condemns the same things that I do".

biblegateway said:
NIV,NKJ,KJV,New American Standard Bible,The Message,Amplified Bible,New Living Translation,English Standard Version,Contemporary English Version,21st Century KJV,American Standard Version,Young's Literal Translation,Darby Translation,New Life Version,Holman Christian Standard Bible,New International Readers Version,Wycliffe Translation,Worldwide English,New International Version UK

Melody · Jul 27, 2005

I have the KJV and the NIV although am a bit frustrated at the slight twist on words in the NIV that alters the meaning just enough to make a huge difference in the lesson being taught. I always have to go back to the KJV. I'm getting ready to add the NKJV and an english version of the Septuagint (thank you James) as more help in my bible study.

I don't know that there is any *one* best. Perhaps the answer is to have several and compare....then if you have a question on translation of a word, there are many knowledgeable people here on RF who can translate from Greek and Hebrew.

James the Persian · Jul 27, 2005

Melody said:
I have the KJV and the NIV although am a bit frustrated at the slight twist on words in the NIV that alters the meaning just enough to make a huge difference in the lesson being taught. I always have to go back to the KJV. I'm getting ready to add the NKJV and an english version of the Septuagint (thank you James) as more help in my bible study.

I don't know that there is any *one* best. Perhaps the answer is to have several and compare....then if you have a question on translation of a word, there are many knowledgeable people here on RF who can translate from Greek and Hebrew.

From my point of view, it's difficult in English because there are so many 'trendy' translations that don't seem to follow the original text at all closely. The paraphrases can often be extremely misleading. From my point of view (being Orthodox) if the Old Testament isn't the Septuagint then it's not the Church's Bible and this makes it even more difficult as almost no English translations are based on it (and those that are are RC and omit certain books).

Melody's advice is good. Use a few Bible versions and compare. I don't think any are entirely accurate (not that any translation ever is). A good interlinear text is also useful if you can't read Greek, because you can see the literal translation of the words used. It's not so readable, but it makes it quite apparent when paraphrases omit important aspects of the text.

James

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 27, 2005

For the Tanach, I would (again) strongly recommend owning the Alter and Friedman translations, along with the standard Masoretic.

As for the Septuagint, I would be hesitant to use the term for anything other than Koine Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture. Even here, speaking of "Septuagint" in the singular can be misleading.

James the Persian · Jul 27, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
For the Tanach, I would (again) strongly recommend owning the Alter and Friedman translations, along with the standard Masoretic.

As for the Septuagint, I would be hesitant to use the term for anything other than Koine Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture. Even here, speaking of "Septuagint" in the singular can be misleading.

OK, but up until the Reformation the Septuagint (in one form or another) was the version used by all Christians. As that was the Church's canon, that's what I will always use. That's not to say that I see no value in the Masoretic Text, just that, for me at least, the LXX holds greater weight.

James

fromthe heart · Jul 27, 2005

I use only the KJV...it has a few things wrong in translation but I went through and marked them to make them right. I found a list of mistakes on the KJV that were reported to need to be changed but I don't remember where it was I got the info now...it's been quite a long time ago now. A lot of people don't like the KJV because it's supposedly hard to understand..but I've found the more time you spend in your Bible the better you understand. I find the new versions that put things in simpler terms misleading in meaning so I will only use the KJV. I also use some study books that help better understand some of the confusing parts...I'll use more than one of those because they are after all someone elses idea of meaning...when the meanings differ I'll ask here at RF for other meanings from different perspectives...There are a lot of great well learned minds here at RF and are very wise folks in their sections of faith....that's why I find these forums indispensable in learning about the whole of the worlds faiths.

michel · Jul 27, 2005

As a 'novice' I am using the KJV - it seems to be the 'recognised' Standard in England - note the spelling.........:biglaugh:

I don't find it hard to follow, but that might just be me - besides, there are so many sites from which one can find individuals' comments and interpretations.

jimbob · Jul 27, 2005

If you want the most accurate bible, learn greek/latin, and read the original text. The translations of almost all english bibles are somewhat messed up. For example, some greek words mean (example) the plural form of "you", but in the english translation, it means the singular form. Personally, i use the Douay-Rheims bible, which is pretty accurate.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 27, 2005

jimbob said:
If you want the most accurate bible, learn greek/latin, and read the original text.

You have no access to an "original text", least of all an original text written in latin.

Sumariel · Jul 27, 2005

Well, Deut's comment on the idea that Christianity has no original text is, unfortunately quite accurate. There are no manuscripts earlier than 100BCE, and there are none that were recorded when Yeshua was teaching, which would have been most accurate, as it would have been a scribe taking, as it were, dictation. Those, however, would have most likely been in Aramaic, the vernacular of the time and place, not in Latin.

As for the Old Testament, or Tanakh, why not go to http://www.bible.ort.org as this is a website used for the education of young Ivrit in preparation for bat/bar mitzvah. The text is gorgeous, and presented in Hebrew, English, and a transliteration to help sound out the Hebrew. If you are interested in accuracy, I think you will find it delightful.
Suzi

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 27, 2005

Sumariel said:
Well, Deut's comment on the idea that Christianity has no original text is, unfortunately quite accurate.

Actually, that is not what I said.

Sumariel · Jul 27, 2005

Oh, then what did you mean?

jonny · Jul 27, 2005

I use the KJV because my church publishes an edition that cross-references it with all our other scriptures. These footnotes really help me understand the scriptures. It also includes a great bible dictionary and topical guide that are a life saver when I am trying to find a scripture. I was raised reading the KJV with my family and I don't find it too difficult to understand. I don't know how accurate it is compared to other versions of the bible.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 27, 2005

Sumariel said:
Oh, then what did you mean?

There are no originals - not of the books of the Christian "New Testament" nor of the books of the Tanach. There are copies of copies, and copies of translations of copies ,and translations of copies of translations of copies. Even when dealing with the relatively small collection of DSS material, experts speak of a 'pluriformity' of textual variants, including proto-Masoretic, pre-Samaritan, LXX-Vorlage, and others, with no one textual witness being superior to the others in its entirity.

The "originals" have been long since lost.

Sumariel · Jul 27, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
There are no originals - not of the books of the Christian "New Testament" nor of the books of the Tanach. There are copies of copies, and copies of translations of copies ,and translations of copies of translations of copies. Even when dealing with the relatively small collection of DSS material, experts speak of a 'pluriformity' of textual variants, including proto-Masoretic, pre-Samaritan, LXX-Vorlage, and others, with no one textual witness being superior to the others in its entirity.

The "originals" have been long since lost.

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your pen, as it were.

joeboonda · Aug 11, 2005

I prefer the king james myself, sticking to one translation helps me recall verses easier. I will compare other versions too, but there are some good books out there, check your christian bookstore, that show a great amount of little changes that many newer versions have made, which greatly affect the meaning of the text.

Original Freak · Aug 16, 2005

It confuses me how someone can dedicate their life to this book, yet people can't seem to agree on which is the best version of the book to be dedicated to, and if any of them even say what the original said.

michel · Aug 16, 2005

joeboonda said:
I prefer the king james myself, sticking to one translation helps me recall verses easier. I will compare other versions too, but there are some good books out there, check your christian bookstore, that show a great amount of little changes that many newer versions have made, which greatly affect the meaning of the text.

As do I, after all, look who authorized it!

michel · Aug 20, 2005

I'm a staunch supporter of the King James Bible. To me, there's no other. I believe that where the King James differs from the Originals, the Originals are wrong.

God wants us all to have a copy of His word
God is a jealous God - (Deuteronomy 4:24)
God promised to purify and preserve His word (Psalm 12:6-7)

We don't need to go to some other source such as Strong's Concordance to verify His word. The Bible is self-verifying.

You can quickly disarm a person in debates by making them stick to the Bible only. I lost a dear friend over a debate on Eternal Security years ago. It got to the point where it was 'Strong's Concordance this, or the NIV that'. When I narrowed the debate to the Bible only, the debate ended quickly, as, unfortunately, did our friendship. And that was tragic!

Jayhawker Soule · Aug 20, 2005

AV1611 said:
God promised to purify and preserve His word (Psalm 12:6-7)

This appears to be a self-serving distortion of Scripture. See the thread on Psalm 12:6-7.

My Bible's more correct than your Bible

Member

Well-Known Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

-- untitled --

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

The Celt

-- untitled --

New Member

-- untitled --

New Member

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

New Member

Well-Known Member

I am the ORIGINAL Freak

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

-- untitled --