Most accurate English Translation

[Ed Edwards]

... Reading and comparing different versions can give
us a better sense of God's true word, His message.
God did not promise to preserve English words. He promised
to preserve His word. God's inspired word is preserved inerrantly
and infallibly for us in English in the various KJVs,
in the NKJV, the NIV, the NASB and in several other versions
available for us. We should be on our knees thanking God
that He has so graciosuly provided His word for us in various English translations suitable for various generations.
As language changes, the words of the Bible need
to keep abreast of those changes in order to keep
the sense of Scripture just as alive today as it was 2000 years
ago when it was first written. ... God didn't limit His word
to a particular set of English words, so why should we?

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Peach it!


Also: the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003),
is the most accurage English Translation in the
English spoken in the USofA in 2007.

 

[Keith M]

I also like and use the HCSB, Ed. I didn' mean to slight it or infer in my previosu post that it is not a quality translation of God's word. Sorry!

 

[npetreley]

I've heard 17th century English referred to as Early Modern English, but not Modern English before. If 17th century English is referred to as Modern English then what do they call today's English? (Not arguing, just asking.)

You're right that 17th century English is also called Early Modern English. That's usually how people distinguish it from today's English (where "Modern English" means everything since the 17th century). I don't think there is a term for today's English. Maybe American English.

 

[rbell]

Postmodern English?

We've had the "Queen's English" and "King's English"...

How 'bout "Prince Harry's English?"

 

[Hope of Glory]

We need to be able to distinguish the original intent of Scripture, not what it says in misunderstood wording.

But, we must never ever do this when this would contradict what we already believe!

BTW, this was cynical at its core, as what you have stated is something with which I wholeheartedly agree, but I have run into the sentiment that I stated here. "Sometimes, God knew how we would speak, so kept them in the dark about what they were translating" was stated to me by two men one time, and they were Baptists, not some other denomination.

 

[av1611jim]

You're right. A misunderstanding of the English used 400 years ago can cause people to err as far as application of some passages. Many times folks miss the mark when they think the English of 1611 meant the same then as it means now. Yet there are other times when 400-year-old English has not changed in meaning. We need to be able to distinguish the original intent of Scripture, not what it says in misunderstood wording. That is why the MVs can benefit us today as they use today's language to convey the meaning of Scripture as it was written nearly 2000 years ago. When we limit Scripture to a set of English words current 400 years ago then we lose some of the meanings and shades of meanings originally intended by the writers.

I've heard 17th century English referred to as Early Modern English, but not Modern English before. If 17th century English is referred to as Modern English then what do they call today's English? (Not arguing, just asking.)

I think it is either disingenuous OR uninformed to apply such reasoning to 17th century English but not to 21st century English. I'll not list examples but will only say that it is not uncommon for folks to read a modern language bible (post 1900) and misunderstand the word's meanings either. To make a claim that just because SOME words have fallen out of common usage that we need to constantly "update" the words themselves is just misleading IMO. It appears that some will champion the right use of study to understand Greek yet will in the same breath disparage the right use of study to understand an English word. Good grief! Even our public schools are not so foolish as to think one can read a given passge of words andfully understand every word of the author. Even the lost public school teachers are smart enough to recognize that oftentimes one must LEARN the meaning of a word before one can UNDERSTAND the usage of the word.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:
The Scripture said that God has the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved and provided us the “Bible.” These modern versions omitted this CERTAINTY of God’s Words.

PROOF, please?

We see the difference between the KJV and these modern versions nearly 10K times because the problem is to ask yourself: How would you feel when these modern versions omitted the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved?

We see the difference because the mvs are written in mcurrent language....and also, modern translators have a lot more material & tools to work with.




The KJV has more passages or God’s Words than modern versions because of the KJV superiority over modern versions. God bless the KJV.

Know what "Bah! Humbug!" means?

Sorry, Askjo; ya have several unfounded and clueless statements here.

 

[robycop3]

Amen to that. I see people misquoting the KJV all the time, not because the KJV is wrong, but because they don't understand the Modern English it uses and therefore have the wrong idea about what the verse means.

You probably know this already, but for the benefit of others, the term Modern English is misleading. The term refers to the English used in the 17th century, not the English we speak today.

Strict car enthusiasts call the Model-T of 1908-1927 a "modern" car. I call it the original SUV.

I call OUR English CURRENT English.

 

[robycop3]

Ehud:I could tell you where Gods preserved inherent word is, but I do not think that is allowed here, and then again do we really want to know or even care.

Hint it was the standard for the past 300 or so years.

Well, actually, Ehud, you ARE allowed to express your Christian opinion here. And I can readily tellya where God's preserved inherent word in English can be found quite easily...

IN EVERY VALID ENGLISH VERSION.


Now, I know this begs the question, "What is a valid version?", so I'll answer it also...

A valid version is one that accurately follows its sources. Now, the validity or non-validity of the sources is another subject....

 

[Askjo]

Askjo:
The Scripture said that God has the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved and provided us the “Bible.” These modern versions omitted this CERTAINTY of God’s Words.

PROOF, please?

Proverbs 20:20-21

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?


We see the difference between the KJV and these modern versions nearly 10K times because the problem is to ask yourself: How would you feel when these modern versions omitted the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved?

We see the difference because the mvs are written in mcurrent language....and also, modern translators have a lot more material & tools to work with. .....their naturalistic thinking, not their scholarship, but their unbeliefs.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

Proverbs 20:20-21

Have not I written to thee excellent
things in counsels and knowledge,
that I might make thee know
the certainty of the words of truth; that thou
mightest answer the words of truth to them
that send unto thee?

Perchance the following is meant?

Proverbs 22:20-21 (KJV1611 Edition):
Haue not I written to thee excellent
things in counsailes and knowledge:
21 That I might make thee knowe
the certainty of the words of truth; that thou
mightest answere the words of trueth to them
that send vnto thee?

The Hebrew word translated 'words' here
is elsewhere translated otherwise.

According to Strong's:

H561
אמר
'êmer
ay'-mer
From H559; something said: - answer,
X appointed unto him, saying, speech, word.

45 times thatword is used as 'words'
The other five times that word is used as:

Job 6:26 - speaches

Job 20:29 - appointed

Job 32:14 - speeches

Proverbs 4:10 - sayings

Proverbs 4:20 - sayings

 

[Keith M]

I think it is either disingenuous OR uninformed to apply such reasoning to 17th century English but not to 21st century English. I'll not list examples but will only say that it is not uncommon for folks to read a modern language bible (post 1900) and misunderstand the word's meanings either. To make a claim that just because SOME words have fallen out of common usage that we need to constantly "update" the words themselves is just misleading IMO. It appears that some will champion the right use of study to understand Greek yet will in the same breath disparage the right use of study to understand an English word. Good grief! Even our public schools are not so foolish as to think one can read a given passge of words andfully understand every word of the author. Even the lost public school teachers are smart enough to recognize that oftentimes one must LEARN the meaning of a word before one can UNDERSTAND the usage of the word.

Jim, your logic breaks down completely when applied to the originals. Someone reading John's Gospel in A.D. 150 certainly didn't need lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, etc. in order to understand what John had written. The same should be true today. The message of the Bible was not written so that only those with higher educations could comprehend the Gospel message. The message of Scrpture was written with a simplicity that anyone should have been able to understand. Yet with your line of logic, you would deny that simplicity to many readers, making the message of the Bible available to only the elite, or those with lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, etc. While the meanings of some English words change, the message must not change - it must be just as current and as alive today as it was when it was first written, otherwise the message becomes lost in a confusion of antiquated words. The MVs which present the Bible's message without being restricted to a particular set of English words are the most accurate English versions for today. So although the various KJVs have a rightful place as translations of God's word, they are not necessarily the most accurate translation of God's word for today's reader.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The Scripture said that God has the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved and provided us the “Bible.”

The word "bible" does not appear in the English KJV translation. (I mention this, not to insult Asko's intelligence, but in the event that this thread be read at later date by some one without this knowledge). We will assume that the "Bible" here is meant as the Protestant one (66 books).

The concept of combining the Jewish scrolls with the 1st century Christian documents in Greek was not yet even conceived when the New Testament penmen were executing their task. The words "new testament" only occur in the KJV six times, none in reference to a written document. There are only two verses that "new testament" does not refer to Christ's "blood" or His "cup", here is one (2 Corinthians 3:6, KJV)--

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.​

This verse tends to prove that the "new testament" is NOT a written message, but rather a spiritual message. Paul's letters were likely completed before most of the other NT books. Additionally, in the KJV's New Testament every occurence of the word "scriptures" is only a reference to the writings of the Hebrew Tanakh (Old Testament). It is very clear that the apostles promoted the doctrine of inspiration towards the ancient Hebrew scriptures. However, those verses cannot be applied to the later canonical gospels and epistles.

In fact, the specific phrase "word of God" (or even"word of the Lord" and "word of Christ") never directly refer to a written message in the KJV NT. There are only a few limited internal proofs for the inspiration of New Testament books, so their authority must primarily be supported from external evidence (church fathers testimony, historical accuracy, etc).

 

[franklinmonroe]

...Proverbs 20:20-21...

Wrong reference given; its actually in chapter 22.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:
The Scripture said that God has the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved and provided us the “Bible.” These modern versions omitted this CERTAINTY of God’s Words.

PROOF, please?

Proverbs 20:20-21

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?


We see the difference between the KJV and these modern versions nearly 10K times because the problem is to ask yourself: How would you feel when these modern versions omitted the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved?

We see the difference because the mvs are written in mcurrent language....and also, modern translators have a lot more material & tools to work with. .....their naturalistic thinking, not their scholarship, but their unbeliefs.

1.) Not one peep about any one version nor language in the Proverb above. It can be equally applied to ANY valid version in any language.


2.) Your 2nd statement above is pure guesswork.

 

[robycop3]

Given the many possible correct English rendering of many, MANY Greek or Hebrew words/phrases, it's almost impossible for even a committee of people proficient in both languages to reach a consensus for the most-accurate translation, even by using an overview of all Scripture to help choose the "best" rendering.

A clear example is the recently-discussed 1 Timothy 6:10. While "The love of money is THE root of ALL evil" is a valid rendering of the Greek, so is "A root of ALL SORTS of evil", which, in a reality check, is the MORE ACCURATE rendering, the rendering used in just about every post-AV version.

That's why if we had 50 highly-skilled translators, all devout Christians, working with the best tools & every possible available manuscripts, we'd have 50 more Bible versions, no two exactly alike. BUT COULD WE TRUTHFULLY DECLARE ONE BETTER THAN THE OTHERS? Prolly not. That's why I don't quibble over the differences in a few words between versions.

I BELIEVE GOD CAN TAKE CARE OF HIS OWN WORD FAR BETTER THAN MAN CAN! I believe GOD presents His word to us as HE chooses, and we have NO RIGHT to diss any version unless it's CLEARLY corrupt.

(Which begs the question, "Who defines what's corrupt?")

 

[npetreley]

(Which begs the question, "Who defines what's corrupt?")

That would be me. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.


(Okay...just kidding...)

 

[Hope of Glory]

The KJV has more passages or God’s Words than modern versions because of the KJV superiority over modern versions. God bless the KJV.

Then perhaps a few more should be added to make it even more complete.

Oh, wait, a few have.

 

[rsr]

If 17th century English is referred to as Modern English then what do they call today's English? (Not arguing, just asking.)

Still Modern English.

While Jacobin (actually Tudor) English is a bit strange to modern ears, the core of vocabulary and syntax is largely unchanged. You can see the lingering -eth verbendings and the distinction between thou and you in the KJV - which was an archaism from Middle English perpetuated the new version - but the word order is fairly similar to current English and the highly-inflected nature of older English is much simplified.

You can, with only a bit of work, fairly easily decipher the original KJV. If you step back to Middle English, you will find your work much more difficult. Not only are you dealing with more inflections, you also have to decipher runic characters that have since disappeared and find more and more words that you don't understand.

 

[Keith M]

Still Modern English.

While Jacobin (actually Tudor) English is a bit strange to modern ears, the core of vocabulary and syntax is largely unchanged. You can see the lingering -eth verbendings and the distinction between thou and you in the KJV - which was an archaism from Middle English perpetuated the new version - but the word order is fairly similar to current English and the highly-inflected nature of older English is much simplified.

OK - makes sense.

You can, with only a bit of work, fairly easily decipher the original KJV. If you step back to Middle English, you will find your work much more difficult. Not only are you dealing with more inflections, you also have to decipher runic characters that have since disappeared and find more and more words that you don't understand.

That's a good point. The problem is that some would have us always having to "decipher" the word of God. MVs do that for us because they present the meaning of God's word in language easily understood by the modern reader - not in language that was current 400 years ago. Today's MVs keep Scripture just as alive and current for us as it was for readers of the original autographs. Thanks be to God for His graciousness in keeping Scripture alive and current for us today just as it was for readers nearly 2000 years ago.