So what specifically are the issues with each of these?
Last edited:
Most accurate modern translation?
- Thread starter jessicaleks93
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
You need one you can actually understand. My first bible was kjv given to me for school and I never read it as I couldn't understand all the stilted olde English text. When I became a Christian my church was using the Good News version so i bought one of those and then a few years later I bought an NIV from the bible society and still use that version. I also have a New Living Translation.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
When you address me so carnally it says it all.
Never said KJV was word for word.
I said accurately that it follows the Greek closely.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Apparently not.
You were given an easy question.
Your answer was basically a dodge.
We all have internet access.
You are by no means an originator of information.
And to answer me with filthy nasty comments tells me you lack intelligent answers.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
So you and I do not need to talk....Your question says it all.....you have no clue.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I know the discussions about the King James Version can get heated but if you knew the facts you would know that there is no reason for it. The facts are facts the KJV is really not that accurate and for new Christians it can be hard to read and understand and for that reason it is a favorite among Cults. You are not going to see Cults using the NASB, because they use the KJV to confuse people.
On the other hand the people that worked on the translation were not out to do any of that. They were simply working with reworks and translating from the beliefs of the time period. At the time what they had was the Textus Receptus version of the Greek compiled by Erasmus for the Old Testament, the Masoretic text of the Hebrew was used; for some of the apocrypha, the Septuagint Greek text and St Jerome’s Vulgate Latin translation etc. They used what they had….what else could they use? What else could we expect them to use? That was all that was available. Should they not have tried to translate the Bible? What about the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible? All and all it was a good effort and served a good purpose.
Again facts are facts….all of these translations are important historical examples of the evolution of the Christian Bible. And they can give us an insight into the beliefs of the time period. Some of it can be amusing….Some call the Geneva Bible the Breeches Bible because it said that Adam and Eve sewed themselves breeches to cover their nakedness. And there were revisions of the KJV Bibles that were called the Adulterer’s Bible, the Vinegar Bible, the Murmurer’s Bible, and the Wife Hater’s Bible due to typeset errors.
But the translators of the KJV did do some things that were wrong? They were kinda doing the amplified Bible thing. They would insert verses from others verses thinking they were making the meaning of the verse more clear as noted in posts 18 and 19. And some times they would include reworded verses like the infamous Johannine Comma Addition and at times would insert verses from who knows where, like Mark 16:9-20.....eleven verses.
And today the Bibles are getting more accurate, older NT texts have been found which confirm the additions to newer NT texts and Leningrad Codex of the OT was found in 1838 which confirmed errors in the Septuagint.
Beyond that more accurate Bibles are not going to use the word fornication because it is not in the scriptures and the definition of fornication is not in the scriptures. The word skews the meaning of the scriptures and presents a false reality. The word fornication indicates that two single people having sex is a sin. When the truth is, that two single people having sex formed marriages all through the Bible and history. The scriptures never set a requirement for a wedding ceremony to be married and in fact the words wed or wedding do not occur in the scriptures, Old or New Testament. It was the Protestants in the 16th century that made a church wedding a requirement for forming a marriage. And that is another funny, that the Protestants do not know their own history. Probably because the Bible Only people have issues with this…But it was a good custom for Christians to adopt.
So how do modern more accurate Bibles translate the scriptures? Well older texts have been discovered and we are more knowledgeable about the style of the older texts. Older texts are compared and it is believed that the old texts that were written / copied closer to the time of the originals are more accurate.
The older texts are not good examples of sophisticated Greek writings in style, grammar, or spelling. But back then the methodology of copying scriptures were to copy them letter for letter with the errors….That is one of the ways they can tell the older texts. So you have examples of older texts that include the errors.
As the copy process progressed through history people had a tendency to polish it up, so to speak, correcting the grammar and spelling. And they added popular Christian stories, like the adulterous woman brought before Yeshua, which is not in any of the older texts. Did the event happen? Who knows. I personally believe something like it happened. But still it should not have been inserted in to the scriptures.
From the fifth century on you have a lot of fingers in the pie giving their perspectives and a lot it was Catholic and the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible are using these translations and perspectives.
Today as we learn more the translations get more accurate and then you have some translations that are making corrections. Most Christians would be shocked to know that neither God the Father’s nor God the Son’s names are in their Bibles. God the Father’s name was in the Old Testament about 6,800 times and then they were removed and replaced with the words Lord or God and Christ’s name was never in the New Testament. They used a Greek word that meant healer…. Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs. The Sacred Names Bibles put those names in the scriptures…Yahweh and Yeshua.
So there are the facts….take it or leave it.
On the other hand the people that worked on the translation were not out to do any of that. They were simply working with reworks and translating from the beliefs of the time period. At the time what they had was the Textus Receptus version of the Greek compiled by Erasmus for the Old Testament, the Masoretic text of the Hebrew was used; for some of the apocrypha, the Septuagint Greek text and St Jerome’s Vulgate Latin translation etc. They used what they had….what else could they use? What else could we expect them to use? That was all that was available. Should they not have tried to translate the Bible? What about the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible? All and all it was a good effort and served a good purpose.
Again facts are facts….all of these translations are important historical examples of the evolution of the Christian Bible. And they can give us an insight into the beliefs of the time period. Some of it can be amusing….Some call the Geneva Bible the Breeches Bible because it said that Adam and Eve sewed themselves breeches to cover their nakedness. And there were revisions of the KJV Bibles that were called the Adulterer’s Bible, the Vinegar Bible, the Murmurer’s Bible, and the Wife Hater’s Bible due to typeset errors.
But the translators of the KJV did do some things that were wrong? They were kinda doing the amplified Bible thing. They would insert verses from others verses thinking they were making the meaning of the verse more clear as noted in posts 18 and 19. And some times they would include reworded verses like the infamous Johannine Comma Addition and at times would insert verses from who knows where, like Mark 16:9-20.....eleven verses.
And today the Bibles are getting more accurate, older NT texts have been found which confirm the additions to newer NT texts and Leningrad Codex of the OT was found in 1838 which confirmed errors in the Septuagint.
Beyond that more accurate Bibles are not going to use the word fornication because it is not in the scriptures and the definition of fornication is not in the scriptures. The word skews the meaning of the scriptures and presents a false reality. The word fornication indicates that two single people having sex is a sin. When the truth is, that two single people having sex formed marriages all through the Bible and history. The scriptures never set a requirement for a wedding ceremony to be married and in fact the words wed or wedding do not occur in the scriptures, Old or New Testament. It was the Protestants in the 16th century that made a church wedding a requirement for forming a marriage. And that is another funny, that the Protestants do not know their own history. Probably because the Bible Only people have issues with this…But it was a good custom for Christians to adopt.
So how do modern more accurate Bibles translate the scriptures? Well older texts have been discovered and we are more knowledgeable about the style of the older texts. Older texts are compared and it is believed that the old texts that were written / copied closer to the time of the originals are more accurate.
The older texts are not good examples of sophisticated Greek writings in style, grammar, or spelling. But back then the methodology of copying scriptures were to copy them letter for letter with the errors….That is one of the ways they can tell the older texts. So you have examples of older texts that include the errors.
As the copy process progressed through history people had a tendency to polish it up, so to speak, correcting the grammar and spelling. And they added popular Christian stories, like the adulterous woman brought before Yeshua, which is not in any of the older texts. Did the event happen? Who knows. I personally believe something like it happened. But still it should not have been inserted in to the scriptures.
From the fifth century on you have a lot of fingers in the pie giving their perspectives and a lot it was Catholic and the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible are using these translations and perspectives.
Today as we learn more the translations get more accurate and then you have some translations that are making corrections. Most Christians would be shocked to know that neither God the Father’s nor God the Son’s names are in their Bibles. God the Father’s name was in the Old Testament about 6,800 times and then they were removed and replaced with the words Lord or God and Christ’s name was never in the New Testament. They used a Greek word that meant healer…. Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs. The Sacred Names Bibles put those names in the scriptures…Yahweh and Yeshua.
So there are the facts….take it or leave it.
Last edited:
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
I love to compare different versions, so Biblegateway is my choice. You can learn a lot by comparing....especially when you use an Interlinear as well as a good Concordance like Strongs.
I like the NASB as well....but the ‘95 version rather than the later revision.
Research is my thing....I love to explore all avenues.....the truth hides in the strangest places....but it helps to know that there is only one truth.....and the entirety of what the scriptures teach, must support it without contradiction.....
As I expected Aunty Jane, a considered response. I have discovered over the years that Strong's is more a report of how the KJV translators used the original words rather than straight language definitions. I also use Thayer's, Easton's, and Smith's. There are differences that I use for my thoughts.
In truth, I have been seeing the benefit of the posts from several people here, and yours are definitely one of them.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Most accurate modern translation?
Well, I am trying for authenticity, for spontaneity and for give me a high five. Does that qualify for an 'accurate modern translation'?
Runningman
Active Member
They are issues because they are not contained in the best Greek manuscripts and were found to be later alterations.
Runningman
Active Member
1 Corinthians 15:47 doesn't contain the word Lord.
1 John 5:7 doesn't exist. It was added much later.
1 Timothy 3:16 doesn't have "God appeared in the flesh" in the earliest and best manuscripts.
It's very misleading and I couldn't recommend the KJV for those reasons. The RV is much better.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Name these supposed better manuscripts.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
KJV is taken from the textus receptus
What is RV taken from?
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
FORNICA'TION, noun [Latin fornicatio.]
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Matthew 5:32.
3. Incest. 1 Corinthians 5:1.
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chronicles 21:11, Revelation 19:2.
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Matthew 5:32.
3. Incest. 1 Corinthians 5:1.
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chronicles 21:11, Revelation 19:2.
Please name your superior Greek text.
Are you saying they're better because they're earliest or are they better for some other reason? If they're better for other reasons what are those reasons?
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
As I have pointed out after the 5th century there was a lot of fingers in the pie….as far as translations and resources a lot of it was Catholic. The textus receptus of which the KJV relied on heavily was the work of Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus who was a Dutch Catholic theologian. Which at the time that was what they had to work with. Besides the textus receptus they relied on the Catholic Vulgate by St. Jerome.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
FORNICA'TION, noun [Latin fornicatio.]
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Matthew 5:32.
3. Incest. 1 Corinthians 5:1.
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chronicles 21:11, Revelation 19:2.
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Matthew 5:32.
3. Incest. 1 Corinthians 5:1.
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chronicles 21:11, Revelation 19:2.
Please name your superior Greek text.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
George.....LOL Any thing before the 3rd century. You probably need to look at what they called the Christian texts before the 3rd century....You will learn a few things......
As far as Fornication.....
Fornication
This is a prime example of why we should not make up words and stick them in the Bible, because they cause misunderstandings and false beliefs that can span over a thousand years. The word fornication or a Greek equivalent is not in the scriptures nor is its definition. It is scam that is a reflection of Christianity growing hatred of sex and women after the biblical period.
This stems indirectly from the Greek word porneia means prostitute or associated with prostitutes. Which was not a negative term in the Greco-Roman culture. But the Christian religion thought differently. The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, a Pagan Language. When the Apostles were writing the New Testament they were tasked with using a Pagan language that did not reflect Christian morals. So the Christians adjusted the words and definitions to convey their thoughts. There are variances to the Greek word porneia that define various sexual activities…. all of which are in the scriptures and all of which Christianity considers sinful.
The false beliefs associated with the word fornication start a long long time ago. If you noticed there was no wedding ceremony or vows in Eden. And then you can read the rest of the Bible and find no requirement for wedding ceremonies or vows. Yep! That is right the Bible does not state a requirement for a wedding ceremony to be married in the Old or New Testament. People formed marriages as God described… For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 Neither the Old or New Testament state a requirement for wedding ceremonies. It was about1500 years after the biblical period that Christianity developed a requirement for weddings ceremonies and vows, and that is a fact.
Christianity has lumped a lot of Greek words into the word Fornication as seen in some definitions of the word below, but the word does not appear in any scripture.
Some examples:
noun
πορνεία
prostitution, whoring, harlotry, whoredom,
συνουσία
fornication, coition, intercourse, copulation
From the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11-12 The worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols etc
But Fornication is not a translational error it is man-made word that made its way into the 16th and 17th century translations of the Bible, but still this word did not originate in these Bibles.
When the Greek text was translated into the Latin Vulgate, (circa 404 AD)
the word pornia and its variants were translated to the Latin word fornicatio.
Then translated into the English word fornication and was used in the original Tyndale, Geneva, and King James Version of the Bible.
Like I said, part of the problem was that the New Testament was an attempt to write Christian moral standards using a Pagan language…ie the Greek language that did not have words that reflected Christian standards. The Greeks - Romans did not have the same moral standards that Christians had. For example; If you told a Roman solider that he sinned, it meant that his arrow missed the target….no moral implication. So the Christians writers were taking Greek words and adjusting them to have moral definitions. Why? In the Greco-Roman culture various sexual activities were not considered immoral. It did not matter if it was temple prostitutes or orgies. Married Roman men were free to have sex with who they wanted…female or male. By Christian standards this was a disgusting arrangement. In the Roman culture adultery was not a sin, it was illegal to have sex with someone else’s wife. So Christian writers were tasked with conveying sexual morality from a culture that was without sexual morals and their language reflected the absence of words to describe sexual immorality. Now was all this confusing to the translators of the scriptures, it is a matter of debate.
Like I said,Porneia in the Greek society is mostly a reference to prostitution which was not wrong in their culture. For example pornography, is an ancient Greek word that means writings or paintings of prostitutes and many Roman homes had murals of sex acts and or prostitutes on their walls.
But in the scriptures the Greek word Porneia and its variances appear several times. In all cases the Christian writers were using them as some form of sexual immorality.
Examples:
πορνείας·… porneias … Sexual immorality
πορνείᾳ … porneiai … Sexual immorality in the plural
πορνεῦσαι … To commit sexual immorality involving sexual acts
πορνείαν … Idolatry involving sexual acts
πόρνος … A person that practices sexual immorality
πόρνοι … Refering to as a group of the sexually immoral
πορνεῖαι … inflectional, more or less dirty thoughts
Appearing in these scriptures….
Matthew 5:32, 5:19, Mark 7:21, John 8:4, Acts 15:20, 5:29, 21:25, Romans 1:29* 1st Corinthians 5:1, 5:9, 5:10, 6:13, 6:18, 7:2, 10:8, 2nd Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, 1st Thessalonians 4:3, Jude 1:7, Revelation 2:14, 2:14, 2:20, 2:21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3, 18:19, 19:2
But in no case does it simply apply to two unmarried people having sex, for a very good reason. The New Testament does not have a lot to say about romantic love. But to say that Porneia, is sex outside of wedlock would be inaccurate, since the Bible has no requirements for wedding ceremonies or vows. Marriages were formed by the union and most of the time in early Christianity a lady’s father would chose who they would marry, as was practiced in most Old Testament unions of marriages.
The evolution of the word Fornicate or Fornication
Fornicate comes from a Latin root word, the term fornix means arch or vaulted ceiling. In Ancient Rome, it was known that prostitutes would wait for their customers out of the hot sun or rain in areas that had cover… vaulted ceilings. The Latin word fornix became a euphemism for brothels and the Latin verb fornicare referred to a man visiting a brothel. Meaning a man being serviced by prostitutes.
Of course then St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures used a variant of that….fornicatio and lumped all the Greek variances of porneia under that word.
continued......
- Status
Similar threads
