Most accurate English Translation

[Psalm 95]

I often use the NIV and the NKJV for casual reading, and the conservative translation Swedish Folkbibeln and the KJV for closer study. If I find that KJV and Folkbibeln differs I use more translations, mostly the NASB95 and a interlinerar.

I think the NASB95 may be the most accurate English Translation, but at the same time I find that I need several translation to make me satisfied in closer study. So in reality I think the most accurate English Translation is to use a few conservative translation together.

 

[thomas15]

Psalm95,

I basically do the same as you except I don't use the Swedish Folkbibeln, of course. Instead, I use the NKJV and NIV and when I get down to serious study I go to my interlinerar then NASB. After I think I have it I polish it off with the KJV to give me a sense of historical prespective on the passage.

I use by the way the pocket interlinerar by Jay Green, Vines NT word dictionary, Zodhiates word study dictionary and The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (abridged edition). I also consult Vincents word studies of the NT and AT Robertsons word pictures. If I still don't get it at that point I look at the treasury of Bible Knowledge and Thompson Chain, if still no, I let it be for a while. Sometimes I use an English dictionary with the KJV. I generally use the NASB as my bedrock version.

For Old Testament I use Zodhiates word study OT and The Theological word book of the OT.

I have other reference works and use them but the ones I mention are the main ones. I have been known to spend hours on one verse.

I often use the NIV and the NKJV for casual reading, and the conservative translation Swedish Folkbibeln and the KJV for closer study. If I find that KJV and Folkbibeln differs I use more translations, mostly the NASB95 and a interlinerar.

I think the NASB95 may be the most accurate English Translation, but at the same time I find that I need several translation to make me satisfied in closer study. So in reality I think the most accurate English Translation is to use a few conservative translation together.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...the conservative translation Swedish Folkbibeln and the KJV for closer study. If I find that KJV and Folkbibeln...

Many people now, and in the future, sure will appreciate it if posts can stay close to on topic. Thanks

 

[belvedere]

I like the HCSB. Besides the general translation style, I like the fact that it has plenty of footnotes showing the literal translation of phrases, so that the reader can see them if desired.

Jeff

 

[franklinmonroe]

...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?

Simularly stated by others, there is no one "most accurate" version. Some may fare better in some areas than others.

You seem to focus on the TR based versions (even mentioning some less mainstream translations), so you would not accept a 'critical text' version as being complete, and probably consider it inaccurate, either. If I'm wrong, check out the NET (the www.bible.org New English Translation, not the New Evangelical Translation) with thousands of translator's notes. But if I'm right, you should try to obtain The New Testament in Its Original Order based upon Stephanus' 1550 TR text (its kinda big, and not convenient to carry to church). You may want to look for an English translation of the Tanakh for the Old Testament.

If you are comfortable with the Greek 'majority text' I would suggest that the ALT (Analytical-Literal Translation) as being a very accurate New Testament. Its available through www.dtl.org.

 

[TCGreek]

I like the HCSB. Besides the general translation style, I like the fact that it has plenty of footnotes showing the literal translation of phrases, so that the reader can see them if desired.

Jeff

For those who have really delve into the matter of variant readings and possible translations of particular verses, know that it is not an easy task. I am just grateful to God that we have these modern version to keep the Word fresh in our ears. How ironic!

I have read the Critical Texts critics, but all I can say is that no doctrine of true orthodoxy has been truncated. Jesus is still God, born of a virgin, died on a cross, was buried, rose again, ascended to heaven, and is returning to be glorified in his saints. The gospel is still there in all her glory, whether it is the KJV or the TNIV.

 

[IFB Mole]

franklin,

I'm not an ardent supporter or critic of either text actually - I'm not well versed enough to have a strong opinion in the matter. There are some very vocal and knowledgable brethren that post here and reading BOTH sides of an issue are important to me. The issue with English translations seems to boil down to this:

1) ardent KJVOnlysits ,
2) KJV preferred,
3) KJVpreferred w/other versions used for study and
4) NOT KJV.

Since there are these "camps", I wanted to see what most believe is the most accurate and so far it seems some are "more accurate" than others as opposed to "most accurate"

Finally, for accurateness the 95NAS, HCSB and NKJV are the most mentioned with the time honored KJV used in conjunction with these.

This goes to show that even after 400 years of language change and that between AMERICAN English and ENGLAND English and MSS discoveries the KJV is still a good solid translation, but for a student of the Word (but not a Greek scholar) that using the KJV with other sound translations is a prudent and wise practice for Bible study.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The most accurate translations that I'm aware of are the CLV and the REV. The CLV is not very readable, but there are the marks that let you know the underlying tenses, etc., that don't translate well into English. So, you get a very good translation, with the ability to see the things that don't translate. The REV is much more readable and very accurate.

However, to combine readability with accuracy, I recomment the ESV and the NASB. Although neither are technically as accurate as the CLV and REV, both are accurate, and include little details that most leave out.

In spite of this, I still prefer the KJV, but mostly because I am most familiar with it. It is a good translation, and all my notes about the little things are in it, whether words that have changed, words that shouldn't be included, alternate meanings, or the KJV translator notes.

 

[webdog]

I like the HCSB. Besides the general translation style, I like the fact that it has plenty of footnotes showing the literal translation of phrases, so that the reader can see them if desired.

Jeff

What he said ^

 

[franklinmonroe]

...The issue with English translations seems to boil down to this:

1) ardent KJVOnlysits ,
2) KJV preferred,
3) KJVpreferred w/other versions used for study and
4) NOT KJV.

I think it may be possible to combine groups 2 & 3 since the genuine KJV-preferred folks by definition allow for the possibility of other true Bible versions (whether used in study or not). Additionally, I am not familar with type 4, a "not-KJV" person. No 'freedom reader' of modern versions that I have read dismisses the KJV or is 'anti-KJV', and most hold it in very high regard.

Therefore, there is really only two camps: 1) genuine, hardline KJV/TR-Onlyists, and 2) all others. I think that this is exactly as it should be, since either: 1) the TR-tradition texts have ADDED to the Bible, or 2) the other Greek texts have OMITTED from the Bible. They are mutually exclusive positions. The only other possibility is that: 3) all the Greek texts have at least some additions AND exclusions in them.

... even after 400 years of language change and that between AMERICAN English and ENGLAND English and MSS discoveries the KJV is still a good solid translation,...

I would suppose that many still use the KJV, not because of accuracy, but for one or more of the following reasons: 1) the KJV is still the most elegant version in the English language; 2) presently there are greatly more Biblical helps for it - , concordances, commentaries, and citations; 3) it became a defacto standard by which many are familar and accept, which allows for a common ground.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The most accurate translations that I'm aware of are the CLV and the REV...

I have also been impressed with the CLV (Concordant-Literal Version, brand new copies still available thru the web). But I'm not sure what text you mean by REV? The Revised English Bible is usually REB, and the 1885 Revised Version (RV) or sometimes its listed as English Revised Version (ERV). Please elaborate, thanks.

 

[TCGreek]

I have also been impressed with the CLV (Concordant-Literal Version, brand new copies still available thru the web). But I'm not sure what text you mean by REV? The Revised English Bible is usually REB, and the 1885 Revised Version (RV) or sometimes its listed as English Revised Version (ERV). Please elaborate, thanks.

Let us not think for one moment that literal is the equivalent of accuracy. The seems to be some concept of accuracy.

And why is it that when a discussion about bible version is posted it almost always end up in either KJV or not? The King James Debate by Don Carson is a good place to start.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Let us not think for one moment that literal is the equivalent of accuracy. The seems to be some concept of accuracy.

Yes, literal is NOT synonymous with accurate. Using the words properly, it seems that I want both an accurate & literal version --

ac·cu·rate (ăk'yer-ĭt)
adj.
1. Conforming exactly to fact; errorless.
2. Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.
3. Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement: an accurate scale.
4. Acting or performing with care and precision; meticulous: an accurate proofreader.
[Latin accūrātus, done with care, past participle of accūrāre, to do with care : ad-, ad- + cūrāre, to care for
(from cūra, care; see cure).]

lit·er·al (lĭt'er-el)
adj.
1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.​

I think some folks think that an accurate translation must be a "literal" (definition #2) translation.

 

[Hope of Glory]

But I'm not sure what text you mean by REV?

Rotherham's Emphasized Version

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Therefore, there is really only two camps: 1) genuine, hardline KJV/TR-Onlyists, and 2) all others. I think that this is exactly as it should be, since either: 1) the TR-tradition texts have ADDED to the Bible, or 2) the other Greek texts have OMITTED from the Bible. They are mutually exclusive positions. The only other possibility is that: 3) all the Greek texts have at least some additions AND exclusions in them.

I would say there are at least five "camps", actually:

1. KJV-onlyists.
2. TR-onlyists (some of these are KJV-preferred, some NKJV-preferred).
3. TR-preferred (those who believe that there are good arguments for many of the TR readings, and good argumens for accepting the readings present in various Critical Texts, but prefer the TR of all the options)
4. Critical Text-preferred
5. Critical Text-onlyist (I have encountered a couple of these people, who think the TR is just an awful text)

I myself would fall under number three, although I teach from the HCSB, because the kids understand it and I feel it's a good, solid translation.

Michael

 

[EdSutton]

Therefore, there is really only two camps: 1) genuine, hardline KJV/TR-Onlyists, and 2) all others. I think that this is exactly as it should be, since either: 1) the TR-tradition texts have ADDED to the Bible, or 2) the other Greek texts have OMITTED from the Bible. They are mutually exclusive positions. The only other possibility is that: 3) all the Greek texts have at least some additions AND exclusions in them.

I would say there are at least five "camps", actually:

1. KJV-onlyists.
2. TR-onlyists (some of these are KJV-preferred, some NKJV-preferred).
3. TR-preferred (those who believe that there are good arguments for many of the TR readings, and good argumens for accepting the readings present in various Critical Texts, but prefer the TR of all the options)
4. Critical Text-preferred
5. Critical Text-onlyist (I have encountered a couple of these people, who think the TR is just an awful text)

I myself would fall under number three, although I teach from the HCSB, because the kids understand it and I feel it's a good, solid translation.

Michael

Uh' make room for at least one more "camp". I would consider myself 'critical' majority text preferred, as to the NT. This is not a misnomer on my part, BTW. All the NT texts we have realisitically available, that are not an extant Greek manuscript, are in fact, 'critical', including the various editions of the TR. Likewise the OT texts are 'critical' as well. There is no one, whom I'm aware of, that cites an individual manuscript, either of the NT or OT as their preferred vartiety. When one speaks of Critical Text, one is using a proper noun as an appelation. This is not an incorrect usage, on the face, but sometimes does obscure the underlying meaning of "critical text".

And I prefer the NKJV, personally, for I already own one and so don't have to lay out any more coins laugh: :laugh, at the moment to get a fairly good version. If I didn't have one, and had to acquire a different version, I would seriously look at the HCSB, and then the KJV, ASV, and NASB, and them in no particular order. I have a fair amount of knowledge as to all of them, as I already own both a KJV and ASV Bible, and a NASB NT, and have owned all of them for many years. A weakness of the KJV and ASV is that they are more 'dated' by the language than, say, the NASB, NKJV, or HSCB. Every version has its own strengths and weaknesses, in the language it is translated in. (And I always prefer wide-margin editions, so I have rooom to jot my own notes in the margins.) I just like to try and have a version with more strengths than weaknesses, IMO.

Ed

 

[Kevin_Byers]

A Good Translation?

I recommend the only perfectly preserved Bible. The King James Version.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I would say there are at least five "camps"...

I agree that there are a multitude of preferences. There would also be, of course, a variety of Majority Text positions.

Only two minor differences exist between genuine KJV-Onlyism and TR-Onlyism: 1) KJV-Onlyism irrationally completely rejects its own underlying ancient text; and 2) TR-Onlyism simply does not address the Hebrew text issue. TR-Onlyism has very few practical choices: pre-1611 Bibles, the KJV or some slight revisions of its text, and NKJV. There are almost no fresh translations from the TR. In practice, these two Onlyisms tend to overlap and behave very similar.

3. TR-preferred (those who believe that there are good arguments for many of the TR readings, and good argumens for accepting the readings present in various Critical Texts, but prefer the TR of all the options)

A TR-Onlyist is merely a TR-Preferred that has consistantly chosen the TR variants over the other Greek texts. There is no practical difference. Otherwise, a TR-Preferred by accepting most variants from the TR and accepting any other variant from another Greek text confirms the third option in my post (that all Greek texts have some defects).

Again, any CT-Onlyist would merely be a CT-Preferred that has consistantly chosen the Critical Text variants over the TR. Any CT-Preferred that will accept even one variant from the TR has taken Position #3 from my post. Basically, a TR-Preferred and a CT-Preferred are the same species, separated by only a few opinion-based choices.

My model is the simplest representation of the only three possibilities, and therefore makes the real issue most clear. Thus, there are basically 1) the KJV/TR-Onlyists, 2) the rare CT-Onlyists, and 3) the Preferreds which typically do NOT want to admit that neither (or any) Greek text is perfect. One of the Greek texts could be perfect (making the other corrupt), or they can both be corrupt (but they both cannot be perfect since they are different). This is not the same as two English translations that are worded differently but actually convey exactly the same message.

 

[webdog]

I recommend the only perfectly preserved Bible. The King James Version.

Preserved from what? Something first written in 1611 is preserved, exactly, from what?

 

[EdSutton]

I recommend the only perfectly preserved Bible. The King James Version.

Welcome to the BB. :thumbsup: Hardhats and flak-jackets are recommended along with Bibles, here. :laugh:

Uh, as to your post, which one were you referring to? 1611, which you will see actually quoted many times by Ed Edwards? 1769 Cambridge? How about any of these 'revisions"?

... or 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

It happens to be a basic axiom of logic, that if two things that are different, they cannot still be the same.

Here are a few more typical questions that have been asked on this subject, just since I have been on the BB, for a year and a half, amidst the chasing of this rabbit around the theological track. (You might look up some previous threads on the subject.)

Do you refer to a version that has an English 'copyright' or a version that was 'pirated' to the USA and reprinted here, where the English Crown could not reach, with 'Americanized' spellings vis-à-vis the English spellings?

Is Jesus properly "the Savior", "the Saviour" or 'the Sauiovr'?

Should Isa. 49:13 read "God" as in 1611, or "the LORD" as you will find it today?

All these, as well as the questions to follow, are legitimate questions that are usually elided by those who hold the view you are here espousing, BTW, in my experience.

Which of the spellings is the perfectly preserved one?

And for that matter, why not Tyndale's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible, or the Geneva Bible, the real historical thread and bases for the majority of the KJV? Oh yeah! Don't forget Luther's translation, as well.

Did God suddenly decide to then preserve his word in Elizabethian English, after not having a true version before that?

How come He decided to have it recorded in koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than waiting 1600-2500 years, until He could have the perfect language in which to "prefectly preserve" His Word?

And, finally, what of the great majority of the world which does not and has never spoken Elizabethian English? (BTW, this is by far the most important question asked among these!)

Did He think they were in less need than English speakers of a "perfectly preserved Bible"?

I will offer this link as a good short overview.

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

Now having said all that, I suggest the KJV in any form is an outstanding work of scholarship and effort, and I, in fact, used one for many years until it was stolen from my cab, some 10 years ago, am strongly "majority text preferred" as to the NT, and currently use an NKJV as my own personal Bible.

However one should, IMO, take into account that here are a couple of snippets from what the KJV translators claimed for themselves and the translation, and I happen to agree with it.

"We affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest or least esteemed]translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. Though it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace, the King's speech is still the King's speech; no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant [used], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth [translating] of it." [KING JAMES TRANSLATORS, Translators to the Readers Preface of the King James Version 1611]
"Variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense of the scriptures." [Ibid.]​

And I do like these two quotes from two others, one Baptist and one not a Baptist.

"All subsequent copies or translations are "inspired" only to the extent that they accurately represent the autographs." [HOMER KENT, Spire (Fall, 1983), pg. 3]
"To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves; is to clothe with the claim of verbal inspiration a company of men who would almost quit their graves to repudiate such equality with Prophet and Apostle." [WILLIAM BELL RILEY, his message, The Meaning of Modernism]

But while I can certainly recommend the KJV, I don't make claims the Bible does not, nor even the translators of the KJV or any other version, make for it, as to a version. That seems to me to be less than forthright.
​

Ed