Most accurate English Translation

[IFB Mole]

I have been reviewing what seemed like years of threads concerning English Translations. I seek to find which one(s) which is or are the most accurate in meaning from the scholars deem the most reliable underlying text.

I have read some interesting posts on a "Modern King James" translation by Sr. editor Jay Green that those versed in Greek tend to praise for it's "optimal equivalencey" I guess translators need to be as "literal (formal) as possible and as free (dynamic) as necessary"

Now I would like some input about which translation is most accurate in today's language and why. Is it still the time proven KJV? How about the NKJV?, The before mentioned Modern KJV? Is there a good translation from Scrivner's Greek TR text? How about the 1995 NASB? the ESV? the HCSB? How about the AV7? How about the KJV2000?

Please I covet everyone's input. I ask for the one(s) you endorse so please don't "slam" translations, just mention the one or ones you endorse and why you do.

 

[thomas15]

Anyone care to predict where this thread is going?

 

[IFB Mole]

Please not a KJVO thread PLEASE!!

 

[Keith M]

I have been reviewing what seemed like years of threads concerning English Translations. I seek to find which one(s) which is or are the most accurate in meaning from the scholars deem the most reliable underlying text.

I have read some interesting posts on a "Modern King James" translation by Sr. editor Jay Green that those versed in Greek tend to praise for it's "optimal equivalencey" I guess translators need to be as "literal (formal) as possible and as free (dynamic) as necessary"

Now I would like some input about which translation is most accurate in today's language and why. Is it still the time proven KJV? How about the NKJV?, The before mentioned Modern KJV? Is there a good translation from Scrivner's Greek TR text? How about the 1995 NASB? the ESV? the HCSB? How about the AV7? How about the KJV2000?

Please I covet everyone's input. I ask for the one(s) you endorse so please don't "slam" translations, just mention the one or ones you endorse and why you do.

Your stipulation about being "most accurate in today's language" certainly eliminates the KJVs right from the start - language that is nearly 400 years old is certainly not today's language. That said, I feel the KJVs are still accurate translations of God's word despite the fact they have their errors.

Although I admire his work, I don't think I would consider Green's Modern King James Version (MKJV) or his Literal Translation (LITV) as being extremely accurate. These are both the work of one man and therefore lack the "checks and balances" of translations done by groups of people.

My recommendation for a TR-based translation would be the NKJV. For a non-TR translation I would recommend the NASB or the NASU update of 1995, although the original is probably a little more literal. The language of the update is not quite as stiff as the language of the original NASB.

 

[go2church]

Today's New International Version, TNIV

 

[TCGreek]

I have been reviewing what seemed like years of threads concerning English Translations. I seek to find which one(s) which is or are the most accurate in meaning from the scholars deem the most reliable underlying text.

I have read some interesting posts on a "Modern King James" translation by Sr. editor Jay Green that those versed in Greek tend to praise for it's "optimal equivalencey" I guess translators need to be as "literal (formal) as possible and as free (dynamic) as necessary"

Now I would like some input about which translation is most accurate in today's language and why. Is it still the time proven KJV? How about the NKJV?, The before mentioned Modern KJV? Is there a good translation from Scrivner's Greek TR text? How about the 1995 NASB? the ESV? the HCSB? How about the AV7? How about the KJV2000?

Please I covet everyone's input. I ask for the one(s) you endorse so please don't "slam" translations, just mention the one or ones you endorse and why you do.

For two years I did an intensive studied of versions, MSS and the like. I had a crisis. I wanted the most accurate translation in my hands.

Like many others, I was brought up on the KJV, but I had issues with it, mostly its archaic expressions. I then went to the NKJV, but I notice something. The NKJV would be utilizing variant readings. That intriqued me. And that is when I began that two-year intensive study.

I have read the arguments for which textual tradition is the best. I have even read KJVO positions. I believe with the help of Don Carson's The King James Version Debate I made a breakthrough. Two things he said that have stuck with me over the years are: 1. Literal doesn't always means accurate. 2. God intended His Word to be in the common language of the day.

Since then I have gone on to do graduate studies in in NT Greek and proven the relevance of those two quotes from Dr. Carson.

I preach and study mostly from the NASB95, but I utilize other versions. Since I take an expository approach to preaching and words are important to me, I use the NASB.

There is no clear winner when it comes to which version is most accurate. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. But I like the NASB, ESV, NLT and TNIV

 

[EdSutton]

I have been reviewing what seemed like years of threads concerning English Translations. I seek to find which one(s) which is or are the most accurate in meaning from the scholars deem the most reliable underlying text.

I have read some interesting posts on a "Modern King James" translation by Sr. editor Jay Green that those versed in Greek tend to praise for it's "optimal equivalencey" I guess translators need to be as "literal (formal) as possible and as free (dynamic) as necessary"

Now I would like some input about which translation is most accurate in today's language and why. Is it still the time proven KJV? How about the NKJV?, The before mentioned Modern KJV? Is there a good translation from Scrivner's Greek TR text? How about the 1995 NASB? the ESV? the HCSB? How about the AV7? How about the KJV2000?

Please I covet everyone's input. I ask for the one(s) you endorse so please don't "slam" translations, just mention the one or ones you endorse and why you do.

I don't endorse any translation as "the best". I personally use an NKJV, these days. The reason I use this version, is that my 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible (KJV with a few updated words) was stolen from my cab, about ten yearts ago, and I have not been able to find the same edition, these days. So when replacing it, I found this Bible, and acquired it for two reasons, The rate was right, No. 1; and No.2, the print was large enough (then) to read without glasses. Somehow the print seems to have gotten smaller with time, and now I seem to have to have the glasses, anyway!

:tonofbricks: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Is there a good translation from Scrivener's Greek TR text?

You might take note that the Scrivner (TR 1894), is in fact, a "reverse translation", from the KJV, and is his attempt, published posthumously, to recreate the actual NT text used by the translators of the KJV in 1611. It is mostly identical to a text possessed by Beza, but not exactly, with at least, a couple hundred changes, or so. Just for information.

Ed

P.S Post will not let me correct the spelling to Scrivener, apparently, so I add this postscript.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Anyone care to predict where this thread is going?

HCSBO? :thumbs: :godisgood:

HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/

HCSBO = HCSB Only, HCSB Onlyist, HCSB Onlyism

 

[Ed Edwards]

Today's New International Version, TNIV

Amen, Brother/Sister Go2church! :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

Yeah , everyone . Let's get on the TNIV train ! Of course several compartments can be reserved for non-TNIV enthusiasts .

 

[TCGreek]

Yeah , everyone . Let's get on the TNIV train ! Of course several compartments can be reserved for non-TNIV enthusiasts .

I have a hard copy of the TNIV, and I like it in some places, esp. in John's narrative. But in some other places, I don't particularly like the gender-inclusive language.

I will say that it is definitely an improvement of the NIV.

 

[Rippon]

TCG , name some places wherein you do not appreciate the gender-accurate language of the TNIV .

 

[npetreley]

I use the NKJV but I'd switch to a different translation if I found a better one. I don't like the NIV.

Just my $2 (2 cents adjusted for inflation).

 

[TCGreek]

TCG , name some places wherein you do not appreciate the gender-accurate language of the TNIV .

I love "father" at Heb.12:7, from Gk. sing. pater, because I think Paul makes a sort of a distinction between the roles of Parents at 1 Thess.2:7-12. Note that the TNIV translates hoi pateres as "fathers" but put a note, "parents" at Eph 6:4. I think they were a bit confuse.

And then you look at 2 Tim 2:2 where they render pistois anthropois as faithful people but then then note has "men." I always thought it should be faithful people, but again even anthropos can refer to the male gender at times.

 

[Rippon]

TCG : The TNIV is not flawless while striving to be gender-accurate . However , I checked with the NET and it had the same translational decisions as the TNIV . In 2 Tim. 2:2 "faithful people" was used . That's because as a generic men and women are in view -- not one gender only . In 1 Thess. 2:7-12 , particularly verse 11 -- "as a father deals with his own children" is in the text . The NET text has "a father treats his own children" . In Eph. 6:4 the word "fathers" is in the text as you said , and the footnote says "parents" . The NET note said it can be used to refer to both the male and female parent .

It might be surprising to some , but John MacArthur who came out against the TNIV along with other prominent Evangelicals many times in his commentaries has the same choices as the TNIV over against his favorite translation -- the pre-1995 NASB .

 

[TCGreek]

TCG : The TNIV is not flawless while striving to be gender-accurate . However , I checked with the NET and it had the same translational decisions as the TNIV . In 2 Tim. 2:2 "faithful people" was used . That's because as a generic men and women are in view -- not one gender only .

I believe you may have misunderstood me here, I do prefer "faithful people" at 2 Tim 2:2. I have been saying that for years.

It might be surprising to some , but John MacArthur who came out against the TNIV along with other prominent Evangelicals many times in his commentaries has the same choices as the TNIV over against his favorite translation -- the pre-1995 NASB .

I am not surprized at all. On a whole, people criticized a translation, but in practice they find themselves agreeing with the same translation.

Yes, I love the NET too. I am sure you have noticed how the gender issue is catching on with modern translations. But I think there are places where they can just leave it alone.

 

[TCGreek]

In 1 Thess. 2:7-12 , particularly verse 11 -- "as a father deals with his own children" is in the text . The NET text has "a father treats his own children"

I cited 1 Thess 2:7-12 to show why I prefer "father" at Heb. 12:7, because I see a role distinction. And in the Greco-Roman world of Paul fathers were considered the disciplinarians in that culture (Eph.6:4).

 

[Rippon]

And of course the TNIV has " For what children are not disciplined by their father ?" for Hebrews 12:7 . I cited this for those who may think the TNIV translated it otherwise .

 

[Keith M]

I use the NKJV but I'd switch to a different translation if I found a better one. I don't like the NIV.

Just my $2 (2 cents adjusted for inflation).

Do you think maybe that is how Creflo got his name? Could he have originally been Creflo Penny?