What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Humanistheart]

I was raised on the NKJ version. I was surprised when the Head of the Religious Studies program at my college (a lifelong christian and PhD in said topic) said that the NIV version is probably the most accurate translation of the bible in current use, and the King James version is by a wide margin the least accurate. There are numerous reasons given to support both conclusions, that I'm sure if this get's responded to people will touch on.

But anyway, I cannot speak or read any of the languages that the earliest copies of the bible we have are written in; I cannot confirm this one way or the other. So what version do you all think is the most accurate? What is your reasoning behind your answer?

 

[gnostic]

For the OT, I preferred the Tanakh, by JPS (Jewish Publication Society), 1985.

There's older, 1917 JPS's translation, but it is not exactly a translation, but editing of a translation.

I have not used the NIV, so I am not sure how accurate it is.

What do the NIV based it translation on? The Masoretic texts?

 

[Smoke]

Accurate in what respect?

What criteria do you use for deciding what texts the translation should be based on, and what are your criteria for deciding the best way to render those texts in English?

Personally, I think the NIV is crap. If I were going to hazard a guess, I'd guess that your professor is an Evangelical who likes the NIV for its Evangelical slant, and dislikes the KJV for using words like "bishop." Of course, he may also prefer the Greek texts used for the NIV to the Textus Receptus used for the KJV, but if you want the advantages of modern scholarship you'd do better with the NRSV than the NIV.

The NIV is doggedly, irrationally Evangelical. I find it odd and contemptible that people who claim to believe in biblical inerrancy should find it necessary or acceptable to bend the Bible to their will.

I like the New American Bible for readability and a fair attempt to be honest with the text; the more overtly Catholic emphases are relegated to the notes, rather than forced into the text.

The most readable Christian translations -- to me -- are all Catholic translations, but I like the KJV for sentimental reasons. I especially like the New Jerusalem Bible and the Knox translation. (The latter is based on the Vulgate, though.) You ought to get a JPS Tanakh to see the Bible through a Jewish lens, too.

I reserve a special contempt for the Living Bible, which seems (mercifully) to have disappeared from the market, and the Contemporary English Version, which renders Luke 2.7 thus:

she gave birth to her first-born son. She dressed him in baby clothes and laid him on a bed of hay, because there was no room for them in the inn.​

For fun, I like the Wycliffe version.

 

[Caladan]

I use the Masoretic Text pretty much by default, whenever I use an English version, its mostly the KJV, sort of a default as well.

 

[Humanistheart]

Accurate in what respect?

What criteria do you use for deciding what texts the translation should be based on, and what are your criteria for deciding the best way to render those texts in English?

Personally, I think the NIV is crap. If I were going to hazard a guess, I'd guess that your professor is an Evangelical who likes the NIV for its Evangelical slant, and dislikes the KJV for using words like "bishop." Of course, he may also prefer the Greek texts used for the NIV to the Textus Receptus used for the KJV, but if you want the advantages of modern scholarship you'd do better with the NRSV than the NIV.




.

The class actually had a debate on the class' blackboard as to which denomination he ascribed to. He would not tell anyone, and the only reason we know he is a christian is that several classmates saw him at their church and that he frequently mentioned his 'pastor'. I wish I'd asked which church that was. It could have shed some light on his position.

But as for the usage of the word 'bishop', it's my understanding that the concept of a bishop did not develope until long after jesus' death, so including words like this would reveal a slant to the translation would it not? The challenge of translators with words and phrases that have no direct translation is to understand both the culture of the time it was written, and the original authors intent. So including a word not in any of the biblical authors vacabularies in the translation would indeed be poor translating.

But yeah, I definatly am going to want to get a copy of the JPS Tanakh.

 

[Riverwolf]

I love the New Jerusalem Bible. (Primarily because it's beautifully written.)

But yeah, get a JPS translation of the Tanakh.

Or one of the scholarly translations of the Torah, such as Robert Alter's.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When I first started learning Greek, I hated the NIV. The translation theory is not even "dynamic equivalent" but almost "completely dishonest." It's a highly creative interpretation of the text that sometimes has a loose relationship with Greek syntax and grammar.

Now that I've come a long way in my Greek studies, I can appreciate that some of the NIV committee (some of whom I have met) are quite outstanding Greek scholars, and am baffled by the work that they produced along with several evangelicals who slept through most of their seminary courses.

The NIV is perhaps the smoothest translation into current idiomatic English, but its glosses from the Greek, and the choices that it makes with respect to which text to follow, is biased at best and intellectually contemptible at worst. It doesn't even read like a translation -- because of the smoothness of the reading, it seems like it was written in English to begin with.

The English Standard Version is by far the best translation.

 

[Smoke]

But as for the usage of the word 'bishop', it's my understanding that the concept of a bishop did not develope until long after jesus' death, so including words like this would reveal a slant to the translation would it not?

Very little about Christianity developed till long after Jesus' death, but I offhand I don't recall Jesus talking about episkopoi anyway.

The English word bishop (biscop in Old English) is an Anglicization of the Greek episkopos. IMO, it makes more sense to translate episkopos as bishop and then argue, if you like, about what a bishop should be. The Evangelical problem is that they generally don't use the title at all, and they prefer to obscure the matter instead of admitting that they may have deviated in any way from the organizational norms of the early church. The Orthodox and the Catholics, on the other hand, while using the original word, generally have little problem -- if any -- admitting that the office has evolved over the centuries. It's a much more honest approach than the Evangelical approach.

 

[Muffled]

For the OT, I preferred the Tanakh, by JPS (Jewish Publication Society), 1985.

There's older, 1917 JPS's translation, but it is not exactly a translation, but editing of a translation.

I have not used the NIV, so I am not sure how accurate it is.

What do the NIV based it translation on? The Masoretic texts?

I find the JPS biased in favor of modern Jewish thinking.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find the JPS biased in favor of modern Jewish thinking.

Examples?

 

[Muffled]

I asked Jesus which version to use and He stated "The New American Standard." However I didn't ask Him which was the most accurate. Over the years I find the Holy Spirit taking exception to some of the verses in the NASB, so I don't think it is perfect.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On a side note: The big department stores are thinking of early Christmas promotion. We'll soon be inundated with tinsel and fruitcakes.

 

[Humanistheart]

I asked Jesus which version to use and He stated "The New American Standard." However I didn't ask Him which was the most accurate. Over the years I find the Holy Spirit taking exception to some of the verses in the NASB, so I don't think it is perfect.

...You think jesus told you which one to use?

 

[McBell]

I was raised on the NKJ version. I was surprised when the Head of the Religious Studies program at my college (a lifelong christian and PhD in said topic) said that the NIV version is probably the most accurate translation of the bible in current use, and the King James version is by a wide margin the least accurate. There are numerous reasons given to support both conclusions, that I'm sure if this get's responded to people will touch on.

But anyway, I cannot speak or read any of the languages that the earliest copies of the bible we have are written in; I cannot confirm this one way or the other. So what version do you all think is the most accurate? What is your reasoning behind your answer?

"Accurate" based on what?

 

[gnostic]

I find the JPS biased in favor of modern Jewish thinking.

Well, I think that if you must read the Hebrew scriptures, which in the case of the Christian OT Bible, then the literature or texts required to be in context with Jewish way of thinking than Christian ones.

Likewise, the NT (gospels and epistles), of course, required the context to be Christian ones than Jewish.

In any case, I find that Christian authors of the gospels and epistles tend to be just as biased, when they quoted from the Hebrew section (OT).

An example would be the case of Mary's virgin conception, where Matthew 1:23 quote from Isaiah 7:14.

The Christians are adamant that this has to do with Mary being a "virgin", who conceived without intercourse.

However, Matthew's (and other NT authors) frequently used the Septuagint (Greek Koine translation of the Jewish bible), which used the word parthenos, or παρθένος, hence "virgin".

But if you were reading from the Hebrew texts, Isaiah used the word עלמה, almah, meaning "young woman", which don't necessarily mean "virgin".

No, I think Christians are just likely to be biased, probably more so, when interpreting the Hebrew half (OT) of the scriptures, by pushing Christian ideas/thinking into Jewish scriptures.

But the Christians are not alone in this.

The Muslims do the same thing, like the "new prophet" as being Muhammad in the OT Deuteronomy 18:18-20, or with the Holy Spirit, or the "Comforter", being identified with...again, Muhammad, in the NT John 14:15-31.

Each Abrahamic off-shoot religions are trying to push their ideas, simply because they wished to validate their own religions with older religion (ie Judaism), thereby placing Christian or Muslim ideas into Hebrew scriptures. Both Christianity and Islam have the same insane views that their respective religions to be the "only true religion".

That to me is just basic Religious Propaganda 101.

 

[Quagmire]

Not sure about accuracy, but in some ways the Pe****ta--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe****ta ---seems like a more credible translation than most.

There are several passages that make more sense in the Pe****ta than their counterparts do in the more common translations.

 

[maklelan]

The most judicious Enlgish translation by far is the NRSV, not only because it is not based exclusively on a diplomatic text of MT, but because it also overcomes a good portion of the dogmatic readings of othe translations (although many remain). I prefer to translate the texts myself and only use the English when I need to quickly cover larger portions of text.

 

[maklelan]

Well, I think that if you must read the Hebrew scriptures, which in the case of the Christian OT Bible, then the literature or texts required to be in context with Jewish way of thinking than Christian ones.

Do you mean ancient Israelite ways of thinking, or modern Jewish ways? These are two very different things.

Likewise, the NT (gospels and epistles), of course, required the context to be Christian ones than Jewish.

But they were composed in a context of Jewish messianism, and we're not really privy to a comprehensive view of the worldviews of those who wrote the Christian Scriptures. A new book by James McGrath investigations the Jewish context of early Christian monotheism. There is much that can be learned from a Jewish perspective.

In any case, I find that Christian authors of the gospels and epistles tend to be just as biased, when they quoted from the Hebrew section (OT).

Only if we retroject Jewish perspectives from the Rabbinic period and after into the milieu of the early Jewish and Christian battles for identity and orthodoxy.

An example would be the case of Mary's virgin conception, where Matthew 1:23 quote from Isaiah 7:14.

The Christians are adamant that this has to do with Mary being a "virgin", who conceived without intercourse.

However, Matthew's (and other NT authors) frequently used the Septuagint (Greek Koine translation of the Jewish bible), which used the word parthenos, or παρθένος, hence "virgin".

Keep in mind this translation was done by a Jewish person, not a Christian.

But if you were reading from the Hebrew texts, Isaiah used the word עלמה, almah, meaning "young woman", which don't necessarily mean "virgin".

The Ugaritic corpus uses betulah and 'almah in parallel (as synonyms).

No, I think Christians are just likely to be biased, probably more so, when interpreting the Hebrew half (OT) of the scriptures, by pushing Christian ideas/thinking into Jewish scriptures.

Very often this is true, but it is also true of Jewish readings of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Psalm 82 and Exodus 22 were reinterpreted in the Rabbinic period to refer to judges rather than gods in a blatant retrojection of the then contemporary monotheistic outlook into an explicitly monolatrous textual corpus. The Hebrew Bible often establishes and never denies the existence of other gods (and Isaiah is no exception). This is in direct opposition to the strict monotheism of the subtely hellenized Judaism of the Common Era.

But the Christians are not alone in this.

The Muslims do the same thing, like the "new prophet" as being Muhammad in the OT Deuteronomy 18:18-20, or with the Holy Spirit, or the "Comforter", being identified with...again, Muhammad, in the NT John 14:15-31.

Each Abrahamic off-shoot religions are trying to push their ideas, simply because they wished to validate their own religions with older religion (ie Judaism),

But Judaism does the same.

thereby placing Christian or Muslim ideas into Hebrew scriptures. Both Christianity and Islam have the same insane views that their respective religions to be the "only true religion".

That to me is just basic Religious Propaganda 101.

It's folly to aver that Judaism is not also trapped in this cycle.

 

[gnostic]

Do you mean ancient Israelite ways of thinking, or modern Jewish ways? These are two very different things.

I actually believe there are 3 different ways of thinking - ancient, medieval (Rabbinic) and modern Jewish.

4, if you divide the ancient into pre-Exile (in Babylon) and the Exile and 2nd Temple Period. The Torah or mosaic is quite different to the Exile and post-Exile.

Keep in mind this translation was done by a Jewish person, not a Christian.

Yes, the Septuagint were translated by Jewish people (not person), but at the time of gospel/epistle (hence Christian) authors, they relied heavily on the Septuagint when quoting, and not from the Hebrew (or even the Aramaic) texts.

The Essenes of the same period used Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek instead of just Greek as the Christian clearly did.

Only translations of the bible to English, did they used the Hebrew Masoretic Texts. However, the Masoretic Texts was written between 7th and 10 centuries CE.

It's folly to aver that Judaism is not also trapped in this cycle.

Yes, but the other religions (Christianity and Judaism) used Judaism as the basis of their own teaching. The others are more likely to twist the context of the Hebrew texts, to suit their leaders' or founders' interests (Jesus and Paul, and Muhammad).

Very often this is true, but it is also true of Jewish readings of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Psalm 82 and Exodus 22 were reinterpreted in the Rabbinic period to refer to judges rather than gods in a blatant retrojection of the then contemporary monotheistic outlook into an explicitly monolatrous textual corpus. The Hebrew Bible often establishes and never denies the existence of other gods (and Isaiah is no exception). This is in direct opposition to the strict monotheism of the subtely hellenized Judaism of the Common Era.

Apart from personal research on the angels and demons, I have read very little of Rabbinic texts and know little of Rabbinic teachings (or interpretations) of the Hebrew Scriptures, so I have to take what you say at its face value.

All I can say about Exodus 22 and Pslam 82, that my copy of the Tanakh from 1985 JPS (Jewish Publication Society), they used the words "...a god other than the Lord..." (Exodus 22:19) and "God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He p..." (Psalms 82:1), and neither use "judges".

 

[maklelan]

I actually believe there are 3 different ways of thinking - ancient, medieval (Rabbinic) and modern Jewish.

The modern worldview is far more closely associated with the Rabbinic (as modern Judaism is a direct outgrowth of Rabbinic Judaism), but you are technically correct. I am trying to be as general as possible, though, as to be much more specific would require a great deal more of my time than I am ready to commit.

Yes, the Septuagint were translated by Jewish people (not person),

But the translation of almah to parthenos was originally executed by a single person.

but at the time of gospel/epistle (hence Christian) authors, they relied heavily on the Septuagint when quoting, and not from the Hebrew (or even the Aramaic) texts.

I am well aware.

Yes, but the other religions (Christianity and Judaism) used Judaism as the basis of their own teaching.

But the Judaism they used is not the Judaism of the Rabbis or later.

The others are more likely to twist the context of the Hebrew texts, to suit their leaders' or founders' interests (Jesus and Paul, and Muhammad).

Again, Jewish religionists have no privileged perspective when it comes to interpreting the Hebrew Bible. They are just as much outsiders as Christians and Muslims, and their interpretations may be just as disparate from the original intentions of the authors as those of non-Jews.

Apart from personal research on the angels and demons, I have read very little of Rabbinic texts and know little of Rabbinic teachings (or interpretations) of the Hebrew Scriptures, so I have to take what you say at its face value.

All I can say about Exodus 22 and Pslam 82, that my copy of the Tanakh from 1985 JPS (Jewish Publication Society), they used the words "...a god other than the Lord..." (Exodus 22:19) and "God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He p..." (Psalms 82:1), and neither use "judges".

The discovery of the Ugaritic texts provided a much clearer literary context for the vernacular of much of the Hebrew Bible, which helped to overcome many of the earlier misinterpretations. Modern scholarship has all but left those earlier interpretations in the past. Many apologists, however, still cling to the outdated perspective in the face of that new evidence since it conflicts with more dogmatic worldviews, but not everyone feels threatened by it. While the JPS does not use "judges," they do soften the nomenclature a great deal. For instance, Ps 82:1 says, "the assembly of El," not "the divine assembly" (which would require elohim, as it can be used adjectivally). "Divine beings" is also an attempt to shy away from "gods." The text in Exodus 22 to which I referred was Exod 22:8, which is often still translated "judges" rather than "God."