Which Bible translation is the most accurate?

[RJ50]

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will [OPINION] of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

About time that daft spook was 'exorcised', those who believe in it as an entity, seem to come out with really daft things!

 

[RJ50]

God is really preserving the veracity of His word.

The things to be revealed by GOD are "unsearchable" because they are beyond the grasp of human knowledge.

Jeremiah 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty "UNSEARCHABLE" things, which thou knowest not.

How very silly of the deity if that had any basis in fact!

 

[Awoon]

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Who can fulfill the law? No one except Christ.

To fulfill any law simply means to practice/demonstrate that law.

When you drive the speed limit you are demonstrating ( fulfilling) that law.

 

[BornAgain]

There is NO reason to think of Iesous/Jesus as God.

Iesous was NOT a Trinitarian.

I am not making a theory/think here because I believed that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that is the reason why HE is God.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Jn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jn 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

When Christ said “I and my Father are one” He meant

Jn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

And that is the reason why Christ is God. Christ is not a created being. Christ is not a created angel of God.

People tried to disprove the Deity of Christ from the scriptureS by means of adulterating the very word of God. If you read John 1:1 then jump to John 1:14 then to John 1:18 tell what do you see?

Jn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Now, if Christ is just an a god, why would God place an a god in His bossom when God Himself is against other/HETEROS god?

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other/HETEROS/DIFFERENT gods before me.

If one can really prove from the original Greek text structure that Christ is just an angel or a created being of God, then bring it out in the open, but if one can not prove this from the scripture then He is God, the Son of God.

Our thoughts do not count in the mind of God.

 

[BornAgain]

To fulfill any law simply means to practice/demonstrate that law.

When you drive the speed limit you are demonstrating ( fulfilling) that law.

The law of the land, yes and maybe but sometimes no…

but the law of God?

Ro 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[CMike]

The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

 

[BornAgain]

About time that daft spook was 'exorcised', those who believe in it as an entity, seem to come out with really daft things!

To tell you the truth the only reason I am answering you is that I want to increase the numbers of my posts.

 

[Awoon]

The law of the land, yes and maybe but sometimes no…

but the law of God?

Ro 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Quoting bible scriptures is meaningless because a non righteous can never identify a righteous unless a non righteous has practiced/demonstrated righteous. Since your scripture eliminates everyone, from righteous, then righteousness doesn't exist.

 

[BornAgain]

Quoting bible scriptures is meaningless because a non righteous can never identify a righteous unless a non righteous has practiced/demonstrated righteous. Since your scripture eliminates everyone, from righteous, then righteousness doesn't exist.

Christians can identify the unrighteous from the righteous? How?

Only God can identify the unrighteous from the righteous, no human can do this because only God can see the heart of a person.

2Co 5:21 Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

The glorious purpose of the Father's act in making Christ "to be sin" was that Christians should "become the righteousness of God" in Christ.

Our very best -without Christ- is like filthy rags in the sight of the almighty God.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

[Awoon]

+

Christians can identify the unrighteous from the righteous? How?

Only God can identify the unrighteous from the righteous, no human can do this because only God can see the heart of a person.

2Co 5:21 Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

The glorious purpose of the Father's act in making Christ "to be sin" was that Christians should "become the righteousness of God" in Christ.

Our very best -without Christ- is like filthy rags in the sight of the almighty God.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Christians nor any scriptures in books can recognize anything that your book reads doesn't exist. If there is None righteous then NONE righteous. Your book tells you that.

 

[CMike]

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Who can fulfill the law? No one except Christ.

No one period.

Deuteronomy ch 13 1

G-d commanded not to add nor subtract from the commandments.

The laws in the Torah are perpetual..

 

[Levite]

deleted

As many commentators and many of the Rabbis of the Talmud have noted, the first words of Genesis, (בראשית ברא אל-הים...) bere**** bara elohim... is phrased with deliberate lack of concreteness. As modern scholars such as Everett Fox and Robert Alter have shown, it is perhaps better translated along the lines of "At the beginning of God's creation of...," indicating that the narrative joins the action already in progress.

There is actually ample space for exegetical parable provided by the phrasing of the text, since the narrative in progress presumes that other things were created already before the story in the Torah is told. If nothing else, we must presume as much, since Rabbinic Judaism is quite clear that God created everything, and did so ex nihilo, and yet at the beginning of the book of Genesis, there is already water and wind and land (or at least the material of land). Scholars from all over the spectrum of interpretation have made this point, from the Rabbis of the Talmud to Maimonides to Nachmanides to the Kabbalists to the Hasidic masters to modern scholars.

There is nothing in Midrash that compels a reader to accept it as factual. However, there is also nothing about this midrash or others like it (there are many midrashim about things that were created before Genesis begins, or worlds created previous to our own, and other such ideas) that supports labelling them as unilaterally false and impossible based on the pshat (plain, surfact meaning) of the text in the Torah.

It is also worth noting that Judaism does not read the Tanach (Bible) with expectations that the pshat (plain, surface meaning of the text) is either the only possible meaning or even the most useful relevant meaning. Jews simply are not textual literalists the way that some Christians appear to be.

 

[BornAgain]

As many commentators and many of the Rabbis of the Talmud have noted, the first words of Genesis, (בראשית ברא אל-הים...) bere**** bara elohim... is phrased with deliberate lack of concreteness. As modern scholars such as Everett Fox and Robert Alter have shown, it is perhaps better translated along the lines of "At the beginning of God's creation of...," indicating that the narrative joins the action already in progress.

There is actually ample space for exegetical parable provided by the phrasing of the text, since the narrative in progress presumes that other things were created already before the story in the Torah is told.

I read an interpretation that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there were like thousands or millions of years apart between the verses. Since this is just an interpretation of human mind and there is no way to prove it from the Tenach or the Torah or the entire O.T., then it remains just another interpretation of the human mind.

Can you give some examples of the creation of God before Genesis 1:1?

Can you support this assumption or theory within the Torah or the O.T. or even the Tenach?

When one ask me if Christ is God, I provided them with written verses upon verses by Jewish writers,
Ro 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them/JEWS were committed the oracles of God.

What did they do with these written proofs by the Jewish writers from the New Testament saying that Christ is God?

They changed the wordings of the “Entrusted revelation of God to these Jewish writers” with their own adulterated translations.

My point is, these were written in the New Testament but because they do not want to believe that Christ is God, they challenge it, how much more if they were just a vague interpretation of Christ deity?

I posted a Midrash interpretation of Genesis 1:1 but was deleted. ???

If nothing else, we must presume as much, since Rabbinic Judaism is quite clear that God created everything, and did so ex nihilo, and yet at the beginning of the book of Genesis, there is already water and wind and land (or at least the material of land). Scholars from all over the spectrum of interpretation have made this point, from the Rabbis of the Talmud to Maimonides to Nachmanides to the Kabbalists to the Hasidic masters to modern scholars.

What is your interpretation of when the “TIME” “out of nothing” begins? Is it before “At the beginning” or after the “At the beginning”?

 

[BornAgain]

No one period.

Are you saying no one can fulfill the law of Moses?

 

[ZooGirl02]

I personally have a fairly strong preference for the RSV-CE, Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition. The reason for this is that it is a mostly literal translation of the Bible and so it is good for theological study which is my primary interest when reading the Bible. From what I understand, many Catholic scholars consider the RSV-CE to be the most literal Catholic translation of the Bible. I also understand that it is the preferred English translation of the Bible for the Vatican. That said, the Revised Standard Version was originally translated for a Protestant audience but the Catholic Church endorsed the publication of a Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version and so the Revised Standard Version is one translation that I know of which is used both by Protestants and Catholics. That is another reason why I prefer the RSV-CE because it is useful for evangelism of Protestants. Those are my own personal reasons for strongly preferring the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition translation of the Holy Bible.

Here is a Wikipedia article about the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition of the Bible:

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can also search this translation of the Bible in its entirety at EWTN's website here:

Bible Search RSV-Catholic

In addition, I also really like the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible. From what I understand, it is the oldest English translation of the Latin Vulgate which was authorized by the Catholic Church. It is an official Catholic translation of the Bible and is approved by the Catholic Church. The New Testament was published in 1582 with the Old Testament following in 1610 which if I understand correctly is just before the King James Version was published in its totality which was in 1611 I believe. Also, when I speak of the Douay-Rheims translation I am referring to the revision of it made by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1752. From what I understand, the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible is a literal translation. You can learn more about the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible at Wikipedia here if you'd like:

Douay

The link below has the entirety of the Douay-Rheims Bible online which is searchable:

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Roman Catholic Bible Verses Search.

I also like the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition which is approved by the Church and is actually used at Mass in Canada for the Bible readings which are in their lectionary. I am not sure how literal this translation is but I imagine it is somewhat similar to the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Here is the Wikipedia link to this translation:

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can search it at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. but you do need to select it from the list before hitting search.

Finally I wanted to mention the New American Bible and its successor, the New American Bible Revised Edition. I do like the New American Bible quite a lot. Here in the United States it is the translation that is used in our lectionary which contains the readings from the Bible for each Mass for each day of the year. It seems like a good translation although I don't think it is as literal as some others. Its good for public reading and I think that's why it was chosen for our lectionary. It is also approved by the Catholic Church. I own a couple of copies of this translation.

As for the New American Bible Revised Edition, I haven't really had a chance to take a look at it. I don't know much about it but from what I understand it is an improvement on the old New American Bible. I also understand that it is approved by the Catholic Church.

Here are links for articles for the New American Bible and New American Bible Revised Version on Wikipedia:

New American Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New American Bible Revised Edition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is an online version of the New American Bible. Unfortunately I could not find an online version of the New American Bible Revised Edition. It is still quite new so I guess copyright permissions haven't been granted to print it in its entirety online yet.

The New American Bible

Anyway, sorry I went on and on and on. I thought that since were discussing translations of the Bible I would mention the Catholic versions that I am most familiar with and give a brief explanation of them and relevant links for them. I am afraid I might been slightly off topic and if so, I do apologize.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

IMHO the ESV is the best literal translation a s the NIV is the most elegant.

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe this was meant to mean the "LAW."

In the beginning was The LAW, and The LAW was with God, and The LAW was God.

Law = NOMOS in Greek
Word = Logos in Greek

Yes I am well aware of nomos - however - you are missing the point.

The "word" is the law.

In other words - Torah/Logos was with God from the beginning.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Iesous thereby can be called the "Logos/word" because he is a special Prophet sent to teach the LAW (or to correct the misinterpretations of it known at that time.)

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Who can fulfill the law? No one except Christ.

I translate the ending as -

contrariwise, to verify.

There is nothing there that has to be read as Iesous is God.

*

 

[BornAgain]

The "word" is the law.

In other words - Torah/Logos was with God from the beginning.

Are you saying that Logos was with God before the “time” begins or before Genesis 1:1?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I don't believe there was ever a moment when God existed as a singular being surrounded by absolute nothingness.