What is The MOST Accurate/Faithful English Version Today?

[TomVols]

Rippon said:

Visiting preacher Stuart Olyott preached from it this past Sunday in his treatment of 12 Corinthians 15. I doubt you would have found fault with his message

Well, Havensdad might not like the fact that Olyott's version of the NIV has at least 12 Corinthian epistles :thumbs:

Literal is not neccesarily most accurate. However, the NASB is indeed very literal and quite accurate.

 

[TomVols]

BobinKY:

I don't think Interlinears are "versions" as such. They are interlinears and have historically been viewed as in a different category.

 

[franklinmonroe]

isn't the 1977 Nasv considered to be more literal then the 1995 update?...

Yes, but only very slightly overall; I think it may depend upon the passage being looked at. The NASB is perhaps not as literal (word order) as the ASV which had the reputation as being the most literal English translation and probably still is.

 

[TomVols]

isn't the 1977 Nasv considered to be more literal then the 1995 update?

is it true that the NET Bible doesn't really do a good job of translating the Bible in regarding the Christian view of the OT as being prophetic/pointing towards Jesus? translate it as essentially how a Jewish scholar, not a Christian scholar would see the OT? or was it more that they did not translate the OT quotes into NT texts as much?

1. Not necessarily.
2. Not that I'm aware of. I don't think that's the purpose behind the work of Wallace, et.al.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon said: Well, Havensdad might not like the fact that Olyott's version of the NIV has at least 12 Corinthian epistles :thumbs:

LOL! I meant 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[jbh28]

As TomVols said earlier --the more literal doesn't necessarily mean more accurate.

yeah, your right. sometimes the literal translation will give the wrong meaning in the receptor language.

 

[JesusFan]

1. Not necessarily.
2. Not that I'm aware of. I don't think that's the purpose behind the work of Wallace, et.al.

Thanks!
Think read a review of the NET Bible from a Bible Research web site, that had mentioned their problem was the translation had seen OT as not being "found: in the NT, that messianic verses that we would use not high lighted so much...

Still is a good Bible though....

Question, wouldn't the NKJV be considered essentially about the same "literalness" as the NASB, and another good study edition to use?

 

[TomVols]

Fair question.
1. NKJV still not as good due to the mss used
2. NASB is still more literal. That said, the NKJV can be more readable in places.

 

[BobinKy]

BobinKY:

I don't think Interlinears are "versions" as such. They are interlinears and have historically been viewed as in a different category.

Tom...

Thank you for comment. I know you are right--most Bible readers do not use interlinears. However, I find them very useful, particularly when you want to get the literal text.


...Bob

Watch Clutch Cargo on youtube

 

[Amy.G]

The most accurate & faithful translation is the one I use. :tongue3:


:laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

WHICH text though is used?

Critical/majority/Texus Receptus?

Still have the problem with some perferring one text over the other!

Agree that an interlinear IS helpful to study with, its just that once again personal convictions will determine the results of use for biblical studies!

Watch Clutch Cargo on youtube[/QUOTE]

 

[TomVols]

The most accurate & faithful translation is the one I use. :tongue3:


:laugh:

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Tater77]

I mainly use the NASB 95. But I also like the NET mainly for the notes, not so much the translation. And the Holman CSB has grown on me lately.