Hey guys,

I know this has come up before, but couldn't find it. Is there any consensus on which is the best translation of the bible?

i'm not well read as far as the bible goes but this is sort of a loaded/relative question...

I prefer the NIV, but for confusing people the KJV can't be beat.

Plus that is the way that God and Jesus really talk.

Thy...

Thou...

Sayest...

Preparest...

Drinketh...

Thee...

KJV is esthetically the best one imo, but it's pretty bad as far as translations go for the exact same reason it's the prettiest in language - the translators took liberties to make it appealing. Newer translations is also based on more solid sources.

However - It's not without reason that when you bible passages quoted in dramatic fiction they tend to come from the KJV, it's really a magnificent work in terms of language.


I tend to use NIV if I want to discuss the actual content of a passage, and KJV if I just want to throw the passage in for effect. (Oh noes, my secret is out).

King James Version is the original.

Many other versions, NKJ, NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV, change or omit many of the words and meanings of the original KJV.

That's because the KJV is an inaccurate translation. So although it is more esthetically pleasing to some (personally I cannot stand it) it should never be used for theological or doctrinal purposes. The KJV also still contains passages that are known to have been added in much later, were as other translations took them out.

NIV is a thought for thought translation and the NASB is a word for word translation so it is going to be a little more accurate but a little harder to read. That is the translation that I prefer. I have also heard that the ESV is good for research

Yes, for some reason this is a very popular myth. I think it stems from the fact that the translators translated it into archaic English (it was archaic even for them), which has created the myth that it's somehow very old and close to original sources (which it is not, because newer translation is actually based on sources closer to the original writings).

Really? Compared to most Bible versions it's very pretty and has a much better flow of language in my opinion (and I'm really no slouch when it comes to language), . "Correct" translations read somewhat like tax ledgers in many places, since they just go repeat-repeat-repeat.

I know taste can't be argued, I just found it weird.

I just find it hard to read. But that just might be because of the way my mind works. It is easier for me to read PHP code then it is poetry, lol.

Well I know people who seem to communicate better in PHP code than spoken tongue, so I understand the sentiment.

I see that some posts ITT are claiming that the original KJV is an inaccurate translation but that the NEW international version, which changes wordings, is more accurate.

Well, translation is a tricky business.

I can give an example using my native tounge:

"Han var ikke mye hoey i hatten"
Directly translated this means: He wasn't very tall in the hat.

An imaginary KJV version might be: He hath not much height in his headdress. (A small poetic adjustment to get three Hs)

An imaginary NIV version might be: He was ashamed. (Based on what the expression actually expresses)

The imaginary NIV version is more correct, even if it changes wording

Actually it is NIV and NKJV that add the lipstick to make the original book more "tolarable" and politically correct

Fair statement Deuces.

let me counter with:

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

and

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

The very fact that the bible can even be translated makes the liklihood of it being 'God breathed' basically nil as far as I am concerned.

Well, I don't know the specifics of all the changes. As I have stated earlier I've just read and been of the impression that later translations used better sources that weren't available to the KJV.

I could very well be wrong, but I would need to see some solid sources before I change my mind.

So then you would prefer the Muslim approach to their holy book, that it should only be read and spoken in the original language?

I'm not sure you understand the nature of your own objection.

Sure, and that is understandable. And that is what I said, " I need better resources". So I did some comparisons with the KJV and some of the other newer more "accurate" books and I found many changes and omissions such as the ones I listed above.

There is no "consensus" but it's worth considering multiple translations if you're going to undertake any study of the Bible.

Some translations are more literal (word-for-word) and others are called "dynamic equivalents" (idea-for-idea). Each one has its own set of difficulties in the translation (because each one is taking a different philosophy into the act of translation), so it's useful to know where the difficulties lie.

However, you should stay away from KJV and NKJV. Besides the fact that the language is archaic, it represents the level of scholarship of about 400 years ago, and the materials that they worked from was of a lesser quality than what we have today. A feature of the KJV is the appearance of "And" in the Old Testament:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+1&version=KJV

The reason for this is that the Hebrew texts use a character that means "and" but is also used to indicate something akin to a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence. the translators of the KJV, wanting to stay as literal as possible, interpreted the character to be the word, and translated it in that way for sentence after sentence after sentence. We now know that this is a mistake of translation.

If you're really interested in this, you should read:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible.../dp/0310384915

(In fact, this is a book I would recommend to all Christians, because most of them don't even know how much they don't know about their Bible.)

You're correct.

It's the original (ie, first) English translation... it's not the original text. Modern translations are not taken from the KJV but from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts.

Did you know that "Jesus" is really a transliteration of "Joshua"?

At the time that Acts was written, "Easter" was not even a word. In fact, it took perhaps another 800-900 years for "Easter" to come about. Jewish readers and writers would understand "Passover" because that was the name of their festival.

I would expect any all powerful deity who wanted mankind to understand them exactly to make a universal language for their ideas.

Any Bible that changes Jesus to Joshua and Easter to Passover, and many other such chnages, like many other versions other than KJV are simply decieving and a coutnerfeit

That's an interesting claim. Do you expect that any all powerful deity is going to be subject to how you think he should behave?