What can I trust most in the translations of the Bible?

[101G]

Addressing the OP only.
I'm not sure why you're asking this but one thing I have found that many of the new translation help in some areas, but fail in major doctrine of the bible. I suggest compare and get an old bible dictionary for the KJV, like the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English, it helps on understanding old English words used in the KJV. so by comparison with the understanding of words definitions one can make a better justified decisions in what the verse is saying, but always go to God in prayer for the final soultion on judgment of any verse in question.

PICJAG.

 

[Candidus]

Among themselves the Alexandrian and Western varieties of text diverge a lot, whereas the Byzantine are relatively more uniform.

The Western varies a lot, the Alexandrian not near as much. ALL text-types have variations, including the Byzantine text-type. The facts are, the Byzantine text is late, by hundreds of years. The Alexandrian Text was the text "received by all" for at least 400 years because the Byzantine Text did not exist. There is no evidence for it. If the existing evidence of known manuscripts is counted, the Alexandrian Text was the most abundant and popular text up until the ninth century, that is when the Byzantine Text exploded in production and popularity.

We can look at uniformity for an argument, yet the reality is, their is not an early manuscript, even one from as late as the ninth century that agrees with the Textus Receptus that the King James Bible is based upon.

The evidence of the Early Church Fathers shows familiarity with the Alexandrian text, and a little (possibly) from a Western Text (or their recitation from memory). They do not show any knowledge of a Byzantine Text, especially where Alexandrian Text is accused by modern critics for "taking out things from the Bible." Somehow, the Early Church thought that the Alexandrian was Scripture, and the so-called "missing" parts are really late "additions.'

The Modern Translations are not "corrupt", and the Old King James is not "pure." If we look at the King James, it is a good translation of the Textus Receptus. The NASB, ESV, RSV, are accurate and good translations of a compiled Alexandrian Text.

One can determine which is trustworthy in their minds. There are good representative translations to English from each text type. No translation agrees with any single early manuscript, but are compilations of the evidence we have at this time. This is why any honest scholar may change something in their compiled Greek text over time if new discoveries and evidence about the text comes to light.

When it comes to Byzantine based compilations, The Textus Receptus varies with the Majority Text in over 1800 places (so much for uniformity). If we look at the Greek compilations based primarily on the Alexandrian line, it gets revised every few years as new evidence comes it. It is an over-simplification that is in mental denial where one locks onto a single translation and says, "this is IT, everything else is corrupt"! The same goes for compilations like the Textus Receptus (which has been revised multiple times) and say that "only the first edition is pure... everything else is corrupt"!

 

[Steve Owen]

oh okay but NKJV is still good, right?

The NKJV is an excellent translation. It uses the same texts as the KJV, but is easier to understand and more accurate in several places.

 

[Candidus]

oh okaybut NKJV is still good, right?

You're on a greased rail to Hell Buddy!

It does not matter one iota! If you do not speak or understand archaic Elizabethan English, and you understand you NKJV... stick with what you understand!

 

[ourforgiveness-com]

Friends,

there are two families of manuscripts: the Antioch and the Alexandria. If you read the King James Bible, then your bible was translated from the Majority text (Antioch), but if you read any other bible such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, etc. then your bible was translated from the minority text (Alexandria). If you are wondering which of the two families should you consider as a faithful translation then read the book of Acts; for it tells you about the history of Antioch. Here, let me give you a few verses from the book of Acts:

(Acts 11:26).

25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

(Acts 11:27-30).
27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

And there are plenty more verses to confirm how Antioch was a centralize region for Christians. Alexandria is located in Egypt.

With that being said, I would like you to consider the following verse, one is translated from the Antioch (Majority) manuscripts and the rest from the Alexandrian (Minority) manuscripts:

King James Bible
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

New American Standard Bible
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,

New King James Version
He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

New International Version
It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,

New Living Translation
He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.

English Standard Version
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,

And this my beloved, is just one example out of hundreds.


-May the Love of our God, and the grace of our Lord, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

 

[Steve Owen]

Friends,

there are two families of manuscripts: the Antioch and the Alexandria. If you read the King James Bible, then your bible was translated from the Majority text (Antioch), but if you read any other bible such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, etc. then your bible was translated from the minority text (Alexandria).

With that being said, I would like you to consider the following verse, one is translated from the Antioch (Majority) manuscripts and the rest from the Alexandrian (Minority) manuscripts:

King James Bible
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

New American Standard Bible
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,

New King James Version
He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

Unfortunately, all this is quite wrong and very misleading.
First, the NKJV translation uses the Antiochan (actually, the 'Received') text just as the KJV does.
Secondly, the translation of Revelation 13:16 as 'in' or 'on' has nothing to do with the texts as they are identical at that point. The Greek preposition used is epi in all manuscripts. and the word does not normally mean 'in' in the sense of 'inside.' I have no doubt that 'on' is the better translation.

 

[Joseph77]

Does 'motive' matter ? As in who people trust ? (too obvious? but here not meant to be rhetorical)
If so, is the government (the WORLD government, not God's Government)
flexing its widespread power (exercising it)
becoming more like or more fully the beast 'system',
in requiring (though not legally) people to wear masks ? (after the President and Medical Authorities admitted openly, publicly, several times last week on the nationals news broadcast nationwide that the masks won't help a person )

Unfortunately, all this is quite wrong and very misleading.
First, the NKJV translation uses the Antiochan (actually, the 'Received') text just as the KJV does.
Secondly, the translation of Revelation 13:16 as 'in' or 'on' has nothing to do with the texts as they are identical at that point. The Greek preposition used is epi in all manuscripts. and the word does not normally mean 'in' in the sense of 'inside.' I have no doubt that 'on' is the better translation.

 

[Joseph77]

hi I was reading a post, and I read that most of the Bible translations are corrupted. Is NKJV an okay translation of the Bible? I know that it is better in Hebrew and Greek, but I can't read those languages, so I have to have an English one. What English translation of the Bible is most accurate, and what are parts in the Bible that I can trust 100% in the translations?

Don't worry about the translations. The internet is far more corrupt than any translation is. (and are you reading the internet?) It's like a jungle with quicksand all around, eh?
Trust Jesus 100%. Don't trust men. (as in Scripture: "all men are liars" (until Redeemed, and then still some) ) ..... but God is NOT a man that He Could Lie. (thankfully!) God is Faithful and True, He is to be Trusted Completely! HALLELUYAH !

 

[Joseph77]

And this my beloved, is just one example out of hundreds.

No problem. Talk with the Author of Life Himself. Knowing from Him what He Means, as He Reveals Salvation extravagantly generously and freely to little children, and everything concerning Salvation in this life and concerning Salvation in the next life, frees one from all worry (worry that happens if someone else is trusted, since trusting someone else besides God brings a curse from God) ....