• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is King James bible THE best bible? Why?

P

Protester

Active Member
Gaura Priya said:
I like the New World Translation... however, its English is jarring and could use a less literal approach.

If I really wanted to grease my head with oil (Psalm 23 in NWT), my head would have lit on fire.

For accuracy, the usage of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah's name is important!) and beautiful King-James archaic language, I do like the American Standard Version (ASV). Alas, finding a full version of it is a rare find, and is only truly available electronically these days.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you read the very sort monograph on, What is YHWH? What is the tetragrammaton?
I think you'll see that "Jehovah" is a construed name for God, the more likely rendition, in English is Yahweh. I assume that the Star Publishing Co. still publishes the ASV. I think they were doing a copy of the 1929 one, if it has all the original maps, Bible dictionary, and the concordance, it will be a very good rendition of the ASV, if it has those things. I have the --original-- 1929 edition, and it is very well laid out. I also have a facsimile of the 1909 or 1910 or some early version of the ASV. Let's say that layout and the way the proper names were broken up supposedly to aid in punctuation made it nearly impossible to read. The 1929 edition was as good as that early version was bad.:facepalm:

The lady before your reply probably had some good comments about the NWT or The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is rejected by conservative Baptists for many reasons one of which is the way it handled,...John 1:1 ,so conservative Baptists won't use the NWT.
 
Last edited:
pwfaith

pwfaith

Active Member
Protester said:
The lady before your reply probably had some good comments about the NWT or The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is rejected by conservative Baptists for many reasons one of which is the way it handled,...John 1:1 ,so conservative Baptists won't use the NWT.
Click to expand...

The link I provided went in to pretty good detail of why most Christian churches reject the NWT. There are many reasons in addition to John 1:1.

Additional information for anyone interested in comparing:
Is the New World Translation Accurate?
Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?
Major Problems with the New World Translation
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Gaura Priya said:
I like the New World Translation... however, its English is jarring and could use a less literal approach.
If I really wanted to grease my head with oil (Psalm 23 in NWT), my head would have lit on fire.
For accuracy, the usage of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah's name is important!) and beautiful King-James archaic language, I do like the American Standard Version (ASV). Alas, finding a full version of it is a rare find, and is only truly available electronically these days.
Click to expand...

Oil in Scripture is not always meant as: literal oil.
Could stand for a symbol of prosperity.
-Joel 2v24; Job 29vs1,2,6; Deut 32vs9,13; 33v24

In religious use or significance oil was used in anointing.
-Exodus 30vs22-33; Lev 8vs10-12; 1st Sam 10v1; 1st Kings 1v39

Oil also foretold joy.
-Isaiah 61vs1-3; Luke 4vs16-21; Psalm 45v7; Hebrews 1vs8,9

Applying literal oil in a very dry climate would be soothing and refreshing.
-Psalm 141v5

Applying the figurative 'oil' God's Word [Bible] to a spiritually sick or ill person soothes and comforts and helps give spiritual healing.
- James 5vs13-15.



KJV says: Jacob sod pottage at Genesis 25v29.
KJV says: I will appoint over you terror consumption and the burning ague...
-Lev 26v16
KJV says: I will also make it a possession for the bittern.....Isaiah 14v23.
KJV says: the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward. Isaiah 58v8 B.

Most if not all would find the ^above^ wording hard to understand.
 
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
URAVIP2ME said:
YHWH are the four letters [tetragrammaton] that stand for God's name.

Yahweh or Yehowah

Jesus would be in Hebrew: Yehohshua'
Jesus would be in Greek: Iesous'
Click to expand...

Vav usually gives a V, though depending on the vowel point it could give an O or U.

So..even though the pronunciation has technically been lost, the best guess would be Yehovah. Or Yahovah, or any of the varients. But W? I think that comes from the German pronunciation. So it would still be a V sound, and the J would still be a Y sound.
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
JacobEzra said:
Vav usually gives a V, though depending on the vowel point it could give an O or U.
So..even though the pronunciation has technically been lost, the best guess would be Yehovah. Or Yahovah, or any of the varients. But W? I think that comes from the German pronunciation. So it would still be a V sound, and the J would still be a Y sound.
Click to expand...

A Jehovist was the author of the earliest Pentateuch. JHVH is also used.

The tetragrammaton written in the letters: Iod, He, Vau, He.

Hallelujah is: praise Jah short for praise Jehovah.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Gaura Priya said:
Actually, the Karaite Jews believe that the appropriate pronunciation of the name of God was Yehovah, or Yehowah... which helps substantiate the English claim of Jehovah as the Anglicised version of God's name.

Douay-Rheims is a nice Bible too... I was a fanatic about it when I was a former Catholic, and then I just utilised the New Revised Standard Version since all Canadian Catholic churches, as well as Anglican, Lutheran, and other traditional mainline denominations utilised that version. It is readable, legible, textbook-able, and sufficiently formal. :)

When you read the Psalms in the NWT and the ASV though, one says "Praise Jah, you people!" and the latter says "Praise ye Jehovah."

The first makes JW's sound like Rastafarians, lol. :p
Click to expand...

Yes, what is most important is that we use and reverence the divine Name. Jehovah is the form most commonly used today. Jesus told us to pray "Let your name be sanctified" (NWT) or "Hallowed be thy name" (KJ) (Matthew 6:9,10) He also said he made his Father's name known at John 17:26.
The fact is, the divine Name appears over 7,000 times in the Bible. Time and again, Jehovah stated his purpose to make his name known. (Exodus 6:16) Obviously God wants us to use his name and serve as his witnesses (Isaiah 43:10,11)
One reason the mainstream professed "christian" churches reject the divine Name is it gives the lie to the trinity doctrine, the lie that Jesus is really God and not God's Son, as the Bible teaches. (Acts 3:13,John 3:16-18)
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
pwfaith said:
I think it depends on what one considers "most accurate". Is "most accurate" a translation that is exactly word-for-word of the original language or is "most accurate" the one that conveys the message intended?

I think the most accurate "literal translation" is the ESV or NASB, and the most accurate "meaning-based" translation is the NIV (meaning it is the best translation for balancing the literal and meaning). I find the Amplified to be among the most accurate too.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you give some examples of how the NIV is better than the KJV?
 
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
rusra02 said:
One reason the mainstream professed "christian" churches reject the divine Name is it gives the lie to the trinity doctrine, the lie that Jesus is really God and not God's Son, as the Bible teaches. (Acts 3:13,John 3:16-18)
Click to expand...
You just contradicted the Trinity doctrine! lol
 
pwfaith

pwfaith

Active Member
SKKF said:
pwfaith said:
I think it depends on what one considers "most accurate". Is "most accurate" a translation that is exactly word-for-word of the original language or is "most accurate" the one that conveys the message intended?

I think the most accurate "literal translation" is the ESV or NASB, and the most accurate "meaning-based" translation is the NIV (meaning it is the best translation for balancing the literal and meaning). I find the Amplified to be among the most accurate too.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you give some examples of how the NIV is better than the KJV?
Click to expand...


As I said it depends on what one considers "most accurate". I think the NIV is better than the KJV for a "meaning-based" translation (as said above, meaning it is the best for balancing the literal and meaning of the test). The language has changed so much since 1611 that the KJV Bible simply does not mean what it used to mean. In our current society, therefore, it doesn't provide an accurate, to-date meaning of the text. There are outdated phrases and words used, again making it not as understandable as the NIV's modern language. Is it a more "literal translation" than the NIV? Yes, but not as "literal" as the ESV or NASB.

The King James is a reliable translation, don't get me wrong. For those who prefer it there is nothing wrong with it, per say. The OP asked which is the bible version considered to be the most accurate. IMO, for a LITERAL translation the ESV or NASB is the MOST accurate. For a BALANCED approach where one wants the literal balanced with the intended meaning, the NIV is the most accurate.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Me Myself said:
Basically that question. I don´t really consider myself much of a christian today, but I do have curiosity on which is the bible version considered to be the most accurate one and I´ve heard of this name.

If it is the most accurate, why? if you think it´s not, why?
Click to expand...

The KJV is an elegant translation.

Two unfortunate issues, however, keep it far from accurate.

1) The KJV is a translation of the majority text, not the oldest and most reliable texts. This isn't so much a translation issue as it is what they are translating.

2) The KJV is written in archaic English, using words and expressions that can be both a poor translation AND impossible for current readers to understand
 
P

Protester

Active Member
Ah, that's probably one reason that the NASB doesn't use YAHWEH, Preface to the New American Standard Bible

Of course, everyone has noticed there's no "J" in the Jewish alphabet either. :confused:

What is YHWH? What is the tetragrammaton?

While there is no "J" sound there may very well be a "W" sound in Hebrew. In fact none of the Latin alphabet looks like the Hebrew alphabet. I would have been just as happy if Bible translators just put YHWH for the Lord's name as I would Yahweh.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Gaura Priya said:
What about the other very very small church groups called the Sacred Namers... surely, they are using the Tetragrammaton in the form of Yahweh and Yahshua, or Yehowah and Yehoshua, or some variation like that. They have even published Bible translations that restore the Tetragrammaton, to the chagrin and nuisance of both Jews and and traditional Christians from so-called Christendom.

Those Christians from the Sacred Name movement are teaching other Christians to utilise God's name, albeit in the form of Yahweh or Yahuwah or some Hebraic variant... I prefer Jehovah, since it's a classical rendition of the Tetragrammaton.
Click to expand...

Honest translators are to be commended for restoring the divine Name to it's rightful place.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
pwfaith said:
As I said it depends on what one considers "most accurate". I think the NIV is better than the KJV for a "meaning-based" translation (as said above, meaning it is the best for balancing the literal and meaning of the test). The language has changed so much since 1611 that the KJV Bible simply does not mean what it used to mean. In our current society, therefore, it doesn't provide an accurate, to-date meaning of the text. There are outdated phrases and words used, again making it not as understandable as the NIV's modern language. Is it a more "literal translation" than the NIV? Yes, but not as "literal" as the ESV or NASB.

The King James is a reliable translation, don't get me wrong. For those who prefer it there is nothing wrong with it, per say. The OP asked which is the bible version considered to be the most accurate. IMO, for a LITERAL translation the ESV or NASB is the MOST accurate. For a BALANCED approach where one wants the literal balanced with the intended meaning, the NIV is the most accurate.
Click to expand...

O.K., however I must state that when I did compare the NIV to the KJV in a few verses I found the KJV to be just as if not more clear than the NIV. Anyway, as long as the translations are accurate, either one should suffice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top