Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

[Jim B]

Robert,

That's a very biased JW translation that reads JW false doctrine into the text.

If you want easy-to-read versions in simplified language, I suggest The New Living Translation and The Easy-to-Read Version. This latter version was originally translated for the deaf, so the language was simpler and the sentences shorter.

Oz

The Message is also good. Easy reading and very understandable, even though it's a paraphrase.

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

the perfect word of God can be translated by an imperfect creatures?

as you said there is no perfect translations but you can make your own yes it's under copyright but you will not publish it so it's okay

you just need to filter words that seems to be wrong i.e kjv giants=nephilim unicorn=antelope/wild ox

filter those errors the way you like it and it will become perfect in your own imperfect eyes

 

[Truman]

I don't read a physical bible much anymore, just my mother's old large-print NIV. I know there are missing parts, and I am aware of the reasons given for it.
I spent years learning about the different manuscripts, translations, translators, original languages, commentators, concordances, and have done a fair amount of etymology, and research into the various theories of the origins of certain words.
I found all this helpful in arriving at the understanding of the word. Together with the Holy Spirit's help, I have an assurance of my salvation. It took me decades to get to where I'm at. Though I have not arrived.
I do most of my reading online. I like looking up verses on Biblehub so I can scan many translations and allow myself to be led in my understanding. Some translations are scary. Probably my current favorite translation, flawed as it also is, is the Berean Study Bible.
Though I cross-reference with other bibles. I used to have a chain-link bible. I like to keep up-to-date on dead sea scroll translations.
As in this one found in a recent NIV...
"How long will you wander, unfaithful Daughter Israel? The LORD will create a new thing on earth-- the woman will return to the man."
"the woman will return to the man" - Jeremiah 31:22 NIV is from the DSS. Prior to this, I'd only seen "surround," "encompass," "shelter," etc. I always knew they didn't have it right, and when I saw "return," I knew they finally had it.
I think that as long as it's one of the main ones, reading the bible is always a good thing. There isn't such thing as a perfect one. IMO

 

[Illuminator]

An unqualified team of FIVE men translated the NWT:
Fred Franz, Milton Henschel, George Gangas, Albert Schroeder, and Nathan Knorr.

Franz was the ONLY one of them who had ANY knowledge at all of Hebrew and Greek – and studied Greek for just TWO years. This did NOT include the Biblical Koine Greek in which the NT is written. He also claimed to be “self-educated” in Hebrew.

NONE of the remaining four men had ANY credentials OR qualifications to translate the Scriptures.
This fact alone should send up a giant RED FLAG for any serious Bible student.

Look, Franz! It's right there in 1950's Greek!!!

 

[Cassandra]

My favorite is my NKJV because it is the only one I found in Super Giant print at the store. (Better that giant print.) Easy to read.
I also use other online Bible and have a giant print KJV at home, but this Bible is awesome to read because I can read it w/o distressing my eyes.
I would love to have a notebook Bible in this size or even a supergiant with lots of writing space

 

[Happy Trails]

The 1611 KJV Bible is the true Word of God specifically given by God through His servant King James I of England to the English speaking peoples. The pope did not cause the pulling together of Protestant Bible scholars to produce the 1611 KJV Bible; King James, Defender of The Faith, did, by God's Hand.

Many brethren do not understand where the 'heart' of this battle against the KJV Bible comes from. The Roman Catholic Church has always sought to bring the British Church under its control, even back to the times of St. Augustine who when first coming to the Isles to push Catholic doctrine instead already found Scottish bishops of Christ's Church in the Isles. Those Scottish bishops told Augustine they only recognized the pope as just another believing brother like themselves, and no more. That reveals they UNDERSTOOD that Jesus Christ is our ONLY Mediator between God and men. They rejected any pope being over the Church.

The Culdee Church in ancient Britain existed long before the Roman Catholic Church, even those like St. Augustine had to admit. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about the Christian British king and his daughter captive to Rome while Rome was still a pagan empire. The pagan Romans even built the Paladium Britannicum in Rome for the British king.

So actually, the seeds of the Protestant movement already existed long before the Roman Catholic Church and the office of a pope. The Roman Church originally had no office of a pope. The bishops began to vie for power among theirselves, so the need for such an office as a "bishop of bishops" was thought needed (around the 3rd-4th century A.D.). Thus any claim of the office of the pope before then is simply bogus.

This is why Britain became the first Christian nation of history, having accepted Jesus on a national scale, and that while Rome was still pagan. This is why the Church in Britain has remained separate from the Roman Catholic system. The pagan Romans could not destroy the ancient Culdee Church, and the Roman Catholic Church still has failed to get control of the Church of England. Many of the later Bible versions and revisions have a Catholic authority manipulating them for their Roman ecumenical strategies against the Protestant Church. This is why they attack the Greek Textus Receptus texts used for the 1611 KJV New Testament.

Gen 49:24
24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel
KJV

The KJV is an average, or below, translation. By modern standards, it's terrible. But, EVERY word in it is numbered and can be traced to its Hebrew or Greek source. That makes it a handy study tool. I use it more than any other version. But, for accuracy, there are many that are MUCH better than the KJV.

Revised Standards are pretty good. The best accuracy of translation is probably "The Scriptures," published by the Institute for Scriptural Research in South Africa. It's easy to read, and includes lots of Hebrew transliterations and terms that improve the consistency of the text.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is a spin-off from another thread that concerns an update of the KJV, the subject of which has been polluted by KJVOs.

There is a plethora of English translations available today, ranging from those which tend toward a word-for-word rendition to those which are clearly paraphrases. Of course, it is impossible to create a perfect translation. The vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, etc. of the source languages -- ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- cannot be precisely rendered in any destination language, including English.

Additionally, no perfect copies of the Bible exist. The source documents are incomplete and differ from each other, sometimes significantly. Therefore, no English translation can be perfect. In my opinion, the best translations are those that convey what the earliest documents meant to those who heard them (there was almost universal illiteracy) and how they were interpreted in their culture.

My preference is the NET v2.1 It is well-written in clearly-understood modern English and is accompanied by more than 60,000(!) translator's notes that explain in detail why the words were chosen, what they mean in context, and clearly explain doctrinal issues.

So, why do you prefer your translation? Please explain in detail. Thanks.

P.S. This thread is not another venue for KJVOs to claim that their version is perfect. There is another thread to espouse that nonsense.

Well I use teh KJV. I have used it for many years and are very comfortable with teh Elizebethian English.

also it is the translation that has the most linguistic tools to help you further study!

But my favorite English translation is Kittels 10 volume greek- English NT. and Keil and Delitszch Hebrew commentary of teh OT.

these go in depth is the original languages and help portray teh nuance in teh originals that do not show up in simple English translations. While a simple good translation will not cause on to suffer doctrinally, these works give so much more.

 

[Davy]

The KJV is an average, or below, translation. By modern standards, it's terrible. But, EVERY word in it is numbered and can be traced to its Hebrew or Greek source. That makes it a handy study tool. I use it more than any other version. But, for accuracy, there are many that are MUCH better than the KJV.

Revised Standards are pretty good. The best accuracy of translation is probably "The Scriptures," published by the Institute for Scriptural Research in South Africa. It's easy to read, and includes lots of Hebrew transliterations and terms that improve the consistency of the text.

Nah...

Might want to read the following...

Are the Modern Versions Based on Westcott-Hort?

All... the modern revisions of the New Testament are STILL based on Wescott and Hort's textual criticism, having left the Received Texts used for the 1611 KJV Bible.

 

[Happy Trails]

Nah...

Might want to read the following...

Are the Modern Versions Based on Westcott-Hort?

All... the modern revisions of the New Testament are STILL based on Wescott and Hort's textual criticism, having left the Received Texts used for the 1611 KJV Bible.

ISR does not use W&H. It principally uses Semitic sources for Old and New Testaments.

It uses the 1937 edition of Biblia Hebraica as the primary source for the OT.
The Peshitta, Shem Tov, Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland were all sourced for the NT.

 

[Enoch111]

The vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, etc. of the source languages -- ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- cannot be precisely rendered in any destination language, including English.

Since you are promoting THE FUTILITY of translating the Bible, why do you even care about any translation? Just throw up your hands and walk away. As to your attack on KJVO, it shows that you cannot handle the truth.

 

[Davy]

ISR does not use W&H. It principally uses Semitic sources for Old and New Testaments.

It uses the 1937 edition of Biblia Hebraica as the primary source for the OT.
The Peshitta, Shem Tov, Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland were all sourced for the NT.

Can't trust even what the publishers say today about the source for their NT. They use the word 'eclectic' instead of revealing that their NT revisions are still based on the Wescott & Hort new Greek text they devised from different Greek manuscripts. Read that article link I posted.

 

[Philip James]

This is a spin-off from another thread that concerns an update of the KJV, the subject of which has been polluted by KJVOs.

There is a plethora of English translations available today, ranging from those which tend toward a word-for-word rendition to those which are clearly paraphrases. Of course, it is impossible to create a perfect translation. The vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, etc. of the source languages -- ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- cannot be precisely rendered in any destination language, including English.

Additionally, no perfect copies of the Bible exist. The source documents are incomplete and differ from each other, sometimes significantly. Therefore, no English translation can be perfect. In my opinion, the best translations are those that convey what the earliest documents meant to those who heard them (there was almost universal illiteracy) and how they were interpreted in their culture.

My preference is the NET v2.1 It is well-written in clearly-understood modern English and is accompanied by more than 60,000(!) translator's notes that explain in detail why the words were chosen, what they mean in context, and clearly explain doctrinal issues.

So, why do you prefer your translation? Please explain in detail. Thanks.

P.S. This thread is not another venue for KJVOs to claim that their version is perfect. There is another thread to espouse that nonsense.

I like the NAB The New American Bible

But i may be a little partial, having received a (now well worn copy) from my father when i left home.
His personal note and words of wisdom inside the front cover have been a blessing to me many times over.

Also it has great footnotes

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Davy]

... Nestle-Aland were all sourced for the NT.

The Nestle-Aland sourced Wescott and Hort's new Greek text NOT based on the Received Texts that the KJV translators used. So there ya go!

 

[Jim B]

The Nestle-Aland sourced Wescott and Hort's new Greek text NOT based on the Received Texts that the KJV translators used. So there ya go!

Where are we going? So the 1611 KJV used different sources than other, newer translations. So what? There are more early sources, a better knowledge of the ancient languages, cultures, and customs, and a better science of translation these days than ever before. The KJV was designed to promote a secular king. Modern translations don't have that flaw.

 

[Jim B]

Since you are promoting THE FUTILITY of translating the Bible, why do you even care about any translation? Just throw up your hands and walk away. As to your attack on KJVO, it shows that you cannot handle the truth.

Only a cannibal can throw up his hands.

a) I am definitely not promoting the futility of translating the Bible. Where did you get that strange idea?

b) I can't handle the truth because I consider the KJV just another translation, and not a good one at that? Really? I don't consider you as qualified to judge me. BTW, your beloved KJV has this: Judge not, that ye be not judged" Or did you cut that out of your copy?

 

[Jim B]

Nah...

Might want to read the following...

Are the Modern Versions Based on Westcott-Hort?

All... the modern revisions of the New Testament are STILL based on Wescott and Hort's textual criticism, having left the Received Texts used for the 1611 KJV Bible.

An 18-year-old article from www.wayoflife.org is your sole authority? You must be joking?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

There are more early sources, a better knowledge of the ancient languages, cultures, and customs, and a better science of translation these days than ever before.

These earlier sources are flawed. This is documented very well. Earlier does not equal “better”.

The science of translation is hindered by the flawed source texts. No matter how good intentioned a translated may be, his efforts will only convert those flaws.

You believe the narrative, I don’t. I’ve read modern versions and they are weaker compared to the KJV. The missing scriptures are a big drawback as well.

 

[Davy]

Where are we going? So the 1611 KJV used different sources than other, newer translations. So what? There are more early sources, a better knowledge of the ancient languages, cultures, and customs, and a better science of translation these days than ever before. The KJV was designed to promote a secular king. Modern translations don't have that flaw.

You're not making any sense, because the Greek text that Wescott and Hort presented for the 1881 committee to use was based on corrupt manuscripts whose dates have never... been verified, i.e., the Codex Vaticanus that was 'found' in the Vatican library in 1475, and the Codex Alexandrinus claimed to have come from the Alexandria, Egypt school and claimed to be the oldest. It's those Greek texts which Wescott and Hort derived their NEW Greek text 'they' created, and presented to the 1881 committee of scholars to use for their revision.

(For those interested on the real story and historical data, see the scholarly documentary Bridge to Babylon)

 

[Angelina]

I like the NKJV but my favorite is the NIV84

 

[farouk]

My favorite is my NKJV because it is the only one I found in Super Giant print at the store. (Better that giant print.) Easy to read.
I also use other online Bible and have a giant print KJV at home, but this Bible is awesome to read because I can read it w/o distressing my eyes.
I would love to have a notebook Bible in this size or even a supergiant with lots of writing space

@Cassandra Well....you can get a large print King James, also.....