In order to objectively distinguish accuracy of the English versions of the Bible, lists of corrections to the AV were prepared before evaluating any translation. Corrections included care with verb tenses, nouns, and punctuation, doctrinally sensitive texts, consistent translation, use of ancient manuscripts, archaic and un-translated words, as well as difficult-to-comprehend texts with vague translation, and also passages where the AV was correct in the first place. In this way it is intended to suppress an evaluator's personal biases. Preliminary results (reflecting about 80% of the evaluations) follow below. (Note: Differences of plus or minus 5, or less, are usually not significant.)
Note I have only listed a few of the more popular versions here from the article.
Results are based on an analysis of some 68 Old Testament texts and 141 New Testament texts; results are normalized to a scale of 0-100 to compare accuracy of English translations of the Bible.
Old Testament English Translations Accuracy
American Standard Version (ASV, 1901) 84%
New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1963) 82%
Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible (Rhm, 1902) 82%
Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952) 82%
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) 76%
Amplified (1965) 79%
New World (NWT, 1960) 78%
Darby 75%
New International Version (NIV, 1973) 73%
New King James Version (NKJV, 1979) 73%
Leeser (Jewish, 1854) 61%
Young's Literal (1863) 54%
Living Bible (K. Taylor, 1971) 51%
New Testament English Translations
The following are judged first for,
(A) Overall accuracy, then for (M) Manuscript quality, and lastly for (T) Translation quality
Rotherham’s, “The Emphasized Bible” (1872, 1902)…………………… A 85%, M 99%, T 80.5%
Marshall Diaglott (1958)………………………………………………………........... A 81%, M 97%, T 75.5%
Concordant Diaglott (universalism; 1975)…………………………………... A 80%, M 81%, T 80%
Concordant Literal (1926, 1944)……………………………………………........ A 76%, M 73%, T 77%
Kingdom Interlinear Diaglott (J.W.; 1969)………………………………….... A 80%, M 99%, T 73.5%
New World (1950)………………………………………………………….…............. A 75%, M 99%, T 66.5%
Douglas Diaglott (1990)………………………………………………………........... A 76%, M 97%, T 69%
Wilson Diaglott (1864)………………………………………………………............. A 75%, M 72%, T 76%
Weymouth (1902) 5th Edition………………………………………………......... A 71%, M 92%, T 63.5%
New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1963)…………………………….... A 68%, M 95%, T 59%
American Standard Version (ASV, 1901)…………………………………....... A 65%, M 94%, T 55.5%
Today's English Version (= Good News for Modern Man, Bratcher) A 64%, M 88%, T 56.6%
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989)…………………………….... A 62%, M 97%, T 51%
New International Version (NIV, 1973) ……………………………………...... A 62%, M 92%, T 51.5%
Amplified (1958) ……………………………………………………………….............. A 57%, M 75%, T 50.5%
New King James (NKJV, 1979) ……………………………………………......... A 32%, M 26%, T 34%
Lamsa (Aramaic, 1940)……………………………………………………….......... A 30%, M 27%, T 31%
Tyndale (1524)………………………………………………………………............... A 12-%, M 4%, T 15.5%
Authorized Version (AV, = KJV, 1611)……………………………………...... A 5%, M 1%, T 6%
The numbers in each column refer to each version’s degree of improvement over the AV text. [Note it is only the Authorized Versions marginal reading which allows the AV to be slightly better than the AV text alone.]
Note particularly that some of the newer translations accuracies are worst than the older translations.
What a pitifully poor showing for the AV, a Bible Translation venerated by many, just note the following quote as taken from one its proponents found on the internet,
“Thank God for the inspired, infallible, inerrant, perfect, preserved, authoritative, authorized, King James Bible!”
Such blind devotion to a mere translation of the Word, if only the poor soul could give as much devotion to the words there contained.
Now if you happen to like the AV that’s OK too, as I said I like using the NKJV as my general bible, but if I need to really dig in and do some serious study I employ several of the higher rated versions, as it is written, “In the multitude of counselors there is safety” (Prov 11:14)
Of course in the end it matters little whether one is in possession of the most accurate translation or not if they are not in possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Word of God is spirit and no one can correctly comprehend spiritual things unless he is guided by the Lord’s spirit.
Many are under the false impression that they need to personally study the original Hebrew and Greek texts for themselves in order to be assured of the correct teachings of the bible, this of course is not necessary as there are many fine studies on the original texts accomplished by many learned men, and yes even though many of these are found to be biased in one way or another by the personal beliefs of the author nevertheless we believe the Lord has overruled (just as he has done with respects to the Holy Canon itself), and seen fit that his true children receive just the right amount of true understanding in regards to the original texts as to provide them with an accurate knowledge of the truth.
When the true student of the word is confronted with what appears to be a problem with the interpretation of a scripture or doctrine he turns to The Seven Axioms for Biblical Interpretation. These axioms are as follows:
In order for an interpretation of a Scripture or a doctrine to be true it must be,
(1) Harmonious with itself;
(2) With every Bible passage;
(3) With every Bible doctrine;
(4) With God's Character;
(5) With the Ransom;
(6) With facts;
(7) And with the designs of the Bible, i. e., glorify God as Supreme, honor Christ as the Executive and Mouthpiece of God, and contribute to the outworking of God's plan for the Church and the world.
If any interpretation or doctrine is in harmony with ALL these seven axioms, it gives us prima facie evidence of being true; but if it in any way impinges against any one of these axioms, it gives us prima facie evidence of being false. Unfortunately for our Trinitarian friends the doctrine of the trinity is one such doctrine which violently impinges against every one of these seven axioms, and is evidently, therefore, false.
Note I have only listed a few of the more popular versions here from the article.
Results are based on an analysis of some 68 Old Testament texts and 141 New Testament texts; results are normalized to a scale of 0-100 to compare accuracy of English translations of the Bible.
Old Testament English Translations Accuracy
American Standard Version (ASV, 1901) 84%
New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1963) 82%
Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible (Rhm, 1902) 82%
Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952) 82%
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) 76%
Amplified (1965) 79%
New World (NWT, 1960) 78%
Darby 75%
New International Version (NIV, 1973) 73%
New King James Version (NKJV, 1979) 73%
Leeser (Jewish, 1854) 61%
Young's Literal (1863) 54%
Living Bible (K. Taylor, 1971) 51%
New Testament English Translations
The following are judged first for,
(A) Overall accuracy, then for (M) Manuscript quality, and lastly for (T) Translation quality
Rotherham’s, “The Emphasized Bible” (1872, 1902)…………………… A 85%, M 99%, T 80.5%
Marshall Diaglott (1958)………………………………………………………........... A 81%, M 97%, T 75.5%
Concordant Diaglott (universalism; 1975)…………………………………... A 80%, M 81%, T 80%
Concordant Literal (1926, 1944)……………………………………………........ A 76%, M 73%, T 77%
Kingdom Interlinear Diaglott (J.W.; 1969)………………………………….... A 80%, M 99%, T 73.5%
New World (1950)………………………………………………………….…............. A 75%, M 99%, T 66.5%
Douglas Diaglott (1990)………………………………………………………........... A 76%, M 97%, T 69%
Wilson Diaglott (1864)………………………………………………………............. A 75%, M 72%, T 76%
Weymouth (1902) 5th Edition………………………………………………......... A 71%, M 92%, T 63.5%
New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1963)…………………………….... A 68%, M 95%, T 59%
American Standard Version (ASV, 1901)…………………………………....... A 65%, M 94%, T 55.5%
Today's English Version (= Good News for Modern Man, Bratcher) A 64%, M 88%, T 56.6%
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989)…………………………….... A 62%, M 97%, T 51%
New International Version (NIV, 1973) ……………………………………...... A 62%, M 92%, T 51.5%
Amplified (1958) ……………………………………………………………….............. A 57%, M 75%, T 50.5%
New King James (NKJV, 1979) ……………………………………………......... A 32%, M 26%, T 34%
Lamsa (Aramaic, 1940)……………………………………………………….......... A 30%, M 27%, T 31%
Tyndale (1524)………………………………………………………………............... A 12-%, M 4%, T 15.5%
Authorized Version (AV, = KJV, 1611)……………………………………...... A 5%, M 1%, T 6%
The numbers in each column refer to each version’s degree of improvement over the AV text. [Note it is only the Authorized Versions marginal reading which allows the AV to be slightly better than the AV text alone.]
Note particularly that some of the newer translations accuracies are worst than the older translations.
What a pitifully poor showing for the AV, a Bible Translation venerated by many, just note the following quote as taken from one its proponents found on the internet,
“Thank God for the inspired, infallible, inerrant, perfect, preserved, authoritative, authorized, King James Bible!”
Such blind devotion to a mere translation of the Word, if only the poor soul could give as much devotion to the words there contained.
Now if you happen to like the AV that’s OK too, as I said I like using the NKJV as my general bible, but if I need to really dig in and do some serious study I employ several of the higher rated versions, as it is written, “In the multitude of counselors there is safety” (Prov 11:14)
Of course in the end it matters little whether one is in possession of the most accurate translation or not if they are not in possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Word of God is spirit and no one can correctly comprehend spiritual things unless he is guided by the Lord’s spirit.
Many are under the false impression that they need to personally study the original Hebrew and Greek texts for themselves in order to be assured of the correct teachings of the bible, this of course is not necessary as there are many fine studies on the original texts accomplished by many learned men, and yes even though many of these are found to be biased in one way or another by the personal beliefs of the author nevertheless we believe the Lord has overruled (just as he has done with respects to the Holy Canon itself), and seen fit that his true children receive just the right amount of true understanding in regards to the original texts as to provide them with an accurate knowledge of the truth.
When the true student of the word is confronted with what appears to be a problem with the interpretation of a scripture or doctrine he turns to The Seven Axioms for Biblical Interpretation. These axioms are as follows:
In order for an interpretation of a Scripture or a doctrine to be true it must be,
(1) Harmonious with itself;
(2) With every Bible passage;
(3) With every Bible doctrine;
(4) With God's Character;
(5) With the Ransom;
(6) With facts;
(7) And with the designs of the Bible, i. e., glorify God as Supreme, honor Christ as the Executive and Mouthpiece of God, and contribute to the outworking of God's plan for the Church and the world.
If any interpretation or doctrine is in harmony with ALL these seven axioms, it gives us prima facie evidence of being true; but if it in any way impinges against any one of these axioms, it gives us prima facie evidence of being false. Unfortunately for our Trinitarian friends the doctrine of the trinity is one such doctrine which violently impinges against every one of these seven axioms, and is evidently, therefore, false.
