Featured What Bible Translation do you use?

NET Bible

The original. Arguing about copies is pointless; there's no way to compare them to the original to see which is most 'accurate'.

Two questions here, of course. I currently use the NET; it is readable and was translated seriously by people who wanted to serve God's purpose. I'm rather fond of the NEB as well; I just can't find it in the cover I prefer.

I'm not sure which is the 'most accurate'. Nor am I sure if anyone can objectively show one is 'more accurate' than another - EXCEPTING those translations that are intentionally mis-translated in some serious doctrinal statement.

Allow me to give an example: The "Syriac Bible" was translated from what was considered authentic manuscripts into the Syriac language (What was once Assyria and now - more or less - is Syria) very early on; somewhere close to the final compilation of what we know as the Bible. In the 1980s (I'm remembering from the introduction to the Syriac Bible so allow me a bit of vagueness in the dates) or so, the Syriac Bible was translated into English, sponsored by a wealthy member of the Syriac Orthodox Church (in the U.S.)

Not surprising to me, it reads very similar. One minor difference is in Genesis 30:8. In short, the two wives of Jacob, Leah and Rachael were both trying to bear children - sons, of course - to Jacob. Rachael sent her maid Bilhah to act as surrogate and thereby had a son. In the text mentioned, the King James Bible reads: And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali. The Syriac version translates the word 'wrestlings' as 'disputed' or 'argued'. (Again, memory.) The NET reads: Then Rachel said, “I have fought a desperate struggle with my sister, but I have won.”

I suppose the possibility exists that Leah and Rachael actually got physical and fought over this, but I think more likely this was a 'fight' of wills rather than close combat. In context, the three renderings give the same information and flavor.

So which is the 'most accurate' translation? Some could argue endlessly about how this should be so, but not such; while the other fellow insists with great fervor on something else. They all end up meaning the same thing in dog years.

As long as the doctrine and intent is correct, a hoot I give not. The doctrine and intent can be contentious, I agree. But God tends to guide in such matters.

 

don't use a Greek or Hebrew text, but I do read and study from a NKJV and ESV, sometimes I refer to the NASB.

 

I've used the KJV most of my life (having grown up in a staunchly KJO family), so I still use it largely. I also own an ESV and have an app for an ESV study Bible on my ipod. I like it.

As to which is the most accurate, have no real opinion. I've read a bit on arguments for both sides. I like to use translations stemming from both.

 

General texts -
The Masoretic text as presented in the Codex Leningradensis for Old Testament
The Critical text as presented in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

In complete textual traditions as presented by one volume:
For the Hebrew OT - Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is the best reconstructed set of texts for the Old Testament
For Greek NT - the current NA28 reflects the best reconstructed set of texts for the New Testament

I don't believe there is a "most accurate translation." Different translations serve different purposes. Formal equivalency has its purposes but is flawed in aspects, just like dynamic equivalents. I approach different translations for different reasons.

 

I usually use either the NLTse, but I've begun to use the ESV.

I've also used the KJV as well as the NKJV and the Amplified Bible.

Personally, I don't believe any single one of these Bible Translations are any more "inspired in the sense that they are 100% infallible and without any admixture of error."

In fact, I do not believe any translation of the Bible is "inspired" in the sense that its translators were "Holy men of God." (I know that some of the translators were anything but holy!)

OTOH, even some of the men that God used to write the original books of the Bible weren't the kind of people you would think of as being very "holy."

Let's see, there was Moses who was a murderer. Samuel was not a very good "father figure" for his sons. David was also a murderer, as well as an adulterer and a liar. Soloman seldom "practiced what he preached." Jonah didn't rejoice when the people to whom he preached were led to the Lord. Peter used obscene language. Paul was another murderer. Both James and John were subject to succumbing to having outbursts of rage.

You could possibly think of some other very serious character flaws in the men that God chose to use to write His Word.

OTOH, if God actually used these kinds of men to write His Word (and He did!), just think of what He can do with sinners such as you and me!

Aren't you glad that, in spite of our failures and short comings, God STILL wants to use us to further His kingdom!

I sure am!! :godisgood:

(Didn't mean to get carried away like I did, but I'm just so thrilled over the fact that God can use a sinner such as me for whatever purposes He sees fit. I hope that you are too.)

 

KJV, NKV, ESV, NASB, WEB, NET.

I DON'T read the original languages, nor do I know which one is most accurate.

 

A balanced answer.

 

I don't really know anything about the Hebrew and Greek texts so I can't speak about that.

My pastor preaches from the NKJV so I tend to use that. I do compare with the ESV. Recently I've been reading the NLTse and I have to say I'm quickly falling in love. I've always had a high reading comprehension level but I just love the simplicity of huge NLT and just "getting it" right away. I'm thinking of switching over to the NLT.

 

I'm a big fan of that translation myself. I think a lot of KJV readers need to take a look at the NLTse. It would clear away many cobwebs.

 

King James only here!

 

Tell us something we don't know! ;-)

 

I'll use this answer, especially for translation. My church uses the ESV. My school uses the NIV (old and new). My faculty mentor was the NT editor for the ISV. Sometimes, I just read from the Greek (my Hebrew needs more practice).

My preferred GNT hasn't been published yet b/c I haven't done that yet (don't plan on it either). I'd like to say the NA27/28, but I had to make some corrections to the text even when they didn't list the variant in the apparatus. I treat the Byzantine text type w/ more esteem than most eclectic TCs do, so that is a factor.

I also don't restrict myself to the Masoretic text either. Sometimes, I opt for LXX or Qumran readings. Admittedly, I am not versed in OT textual criticism.

 

And it just eats you alive doesn't it? That says something in itself.

Did I make any remarks about anybody else's favorite version? Not a word.

 

Calm down Sonny. Didn't you notice the smiley-face? I was just being humorous. We know that the KJV is your fav. That's all.

 

I love the Byzantine myself, and had some great conversations with Dr. Robinson about textual criticism this past furlough. (My son was his grader while working on his PhD.) You are right of course about him being a true Christian gentleman--and a first rate textual scholar.

But I'm translating from the TR, and we'll soon put out a John/Romans.

Almost all conservative churches in Japan use the Shinkaiyaku (新改訳), patterned after the NASB. There are no modern Japanese translations based on the Byz/TR.

 

I've had a textual criticism class w/ Dr. Robinson as my prof... I triply concur with what was said about him: a scholar and a gentlemen. I didn't quite make it to the Byzantine priority view, but through his influence and Dave Black's I have a great respect for it as a legitimate text type that dates back to the 2nd century. I would challenge people to read Harry Sturz's book (if you can find it), The Byzantine Text-type and New Testament Textual Criticism.

 

I was led to Christ by His word as translated into the NASV, so I use that version. But I also use the NKJV, KJV, and ESV as well as studying the Geneva, Bishop's Tyndale, Wycliffe's, YLT, and other older versions as I come across them.

As for the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Scriptural mss. I don't know enough about them, nor can I read them, to be qualified to pick-n-choose among them. However, I believe that GOD has preserved all those mss. for our use, and we have no authority to diss any of them unless it can be conclusively proven that a given specimen is a forgery or deliberately corrupt.

As for accuracy...again, I'm not qualified to correctly pick-n-choose among the many English translations, but I believe that all the well-known translations are quite accurate, and all are influenced at least a little by the opinions of their particular translators. Given the vast number of Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic words/phrases that have multiple English meanings, 'tis no marvel that the translations differ among themselves.

I prefer literal translations, but I know at least SOME dynamic equivalence is necessary to make some passages understandable in English. And I remember that ALL translations are the products of God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.

 

Do you see a valid reason, based upon textual criticism and theory of translations, whywe could not view all current greek/Hebrew texts as being word of god to us, asessentially extant copies of the originals, that one can be preferred CT, or Bzt, or TR, but not excluding all others but one you prefer?