Featured Most accurate translations

The authors (because if one writer wrote this he or she writes contradictory things) are all over the place. On the chart showing very free on the right and formal on the left GWT is listed as quite far to the left -- when it should be to the right of the NIV and even the NLT.
The authors put the Phillips in the category of word-for-word and then label it free.
The NET is listed as word-for-word when it is really a hybrid of functional and form-oriented.

On and on I could go. It's all mixed up --facts and fiction.

 

You must have only glanced at the article; unless the word 'accurate' now means inaccurate.

 

Come on. You have to grow thicker skin. I did not attack. I expressed a view counter to yours.

I love the NET Bible. I have the 2003 edition. I refer to it often. But the NET Bible is not on the extreme left. It does not belong there. No other chart I know has ever placed it there. It's usually to the right (these charts always have the freer versions to the right) of even the NIV. And you honestly believe the NET is much more formally-oriented than the CSB?

You need to elaborate about what you think "Conservative" means with respect to Bible translations. This subject isn't political you know. So it should not be constructed as Conservative vs. Liberal. It's a matter of the more form-centered versions on the left side of the ledger and the more functional ones on the right. I think the middle ground is best in which a balance is struck between formal and functional. In other words a blending. The mediating translations would be the NIV, CSB, NJB, NABRE etc. The old Modern Language Bible would occupy this ground as would the Norlie and Weymouth. The Phillips would be on the far right but not as extreme as The Message certainly.

 

Interesting topic. But a disappointing article.
We all want an accurate translation of the word of God. We can safely say God knows His own word He gave us. The problem being we cannot agree. And you would think we could.

 

LSB

 

Or its cousin, LSD. They (and you) shouldn't use abbreviations for the McArthur Bible.

 

Why not? LSB is what it says right on the spine of my Bible. KJV, NASB, CSB, all fine, bit LSB is not? Do explain.

 

I was joking around. LSB sounds very much like LSD. It's that 'e-sound' at the end. It applies to the LSB, LSC, LSD and LSE.

 

Everyone should be familure with William Tyndale's translations. His second revision 1534 New Testament.
Gospel of John
The Newe Testament dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke by Willyam Tindale, and fynesshed in the yere of our Lorde God A.M.D. & xxxiiij. in the moneth of Nouember.

Table of contents
The Newe Testament dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke by Willyam Tindale, and fynesshed in the yere of our Lorde God A.M.D. & xxxiiij. in the moneth of Nouember.

 

The 1901 ASV is the American revision of the RV. The RSV is the authorized revison of the ASV.

John 1:18, ASV, "No man hath seen God at any time; the
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
The ASV footnote reads: "Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten."
[The "many" being only a total of 4 "very ancient" mss 5th century or older] [With other mss, that reading is only 0.3% of mss of John] Ref NA & F35GNT.

John 1:18, NASB, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

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

That reading "the only begotten Son" is 99% of the mss of John, per the F35GNT note.

 

The Lsb looks like a really good translation, and is there any Asv 1901 being published today?

 

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-R...erican+standard+version&qid=1644603654&sr=8-3

 

Back in the late 1800's those few Greek Manuscripts were older than any previously examined . They way overvalued them. We now know that almost all variations began in the 2nd century and so their all old.

But we have no excuses in todays time to be fooled by inferior, non original readings. True some are hard to decide when the evidence is split. But there is no reason to go with .3% of manuscripts against a diverse and excellent 99%.

 

Best seems to be to take the Critical Greek text, and also look at the TR and MT for the few times they seemed to have the better rendering!

 

Which critical text? The F35GNT is a critial text. I think for you to understand how and why it is. You would have to at the very least read and understand the arguments in the "Identity of the New Testament text, IV" by Wilbur N. Pickering.

 

Excellent advise! Make sure Servant of the Lord Jesus to get the newest 4th edition. Excellent information contained in it. No one will agree on everything, but there are solid facts contained within. Facts known since the 1800's that are not always talked about by modern critics.

 

I don't quite follow you. Are you talking about textual variants? Instead of speaking of Greek manuscripts, are you talking about papyri , majuscules, or the minuscules? Should as much weight (value) be placed on material from the 11th to 15th centuries, as opposed to the 4th and 5th primarily?