Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

[Jim B]

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.

 

[marks]

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

I prefer the KJV because it feels more like reading the Greek NT to me than other translations. I'm not sure how much detail you are looking for. The NASB also has that feel to it for me, though I think the TR manuscript being comparable to the MMS, I prefer the KJV. I think the MMS is the closest representation of the original that we have.

For the OT, I don't know much Hebrew so I don't have much comment on that.

Much love!

 

[Davy]

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

 

[Robert Gwin]

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 choose the New World Translation as it is fairly easy to understand, and the translators worked hard to convey the true meaning.

 

[Jim B]

I choose the New World Translation as it is fairly easy to understand, and the translators worked hard to convey the true meaning.

The New World translation is the one created by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Do you realize that?

 

[DavidB]

The New World translation is the one created by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Do you realize that?

My first criteria is does the translation honestly and accurately render the Tetragrammaton in some fashion. It could be done by actually printing the 4 Hebrew letters. It could be done by the transliteration into YHVH. It could be done with Yahweh. In English it can be done with Jehovah. But if the translators replaced the Tetragrammaton with Adonai or Kyrios the result is around 7,000 errors right off the top. Unacceptable to me. The KJV only used Jehovah in 4 places but those four verses allowed millions to at least see and know the name. I do appreciate that. Most translations replaced it entirely.

 

[MrBebe]

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.

There's also the Modern King James Version (MKJV); not my preference but I read from it sometimes.

It's important to have a translation that shows in a NT verse/passage, if it is a quote, its origin from the OT. The LITV (literal) and TS2009 (paraphrased) have this feature. We could understand a passage more if we will look at it from the perspective of the OT.

When it comes to hard to understand passages, I look at Interlinear Bibles with Strong's numbers and parsing guide as in: Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible

 

[quietthinker]

Which translation do you think is the best English translation?
one with an Australian accent!.....its fair dinkum!

 

[Aunty Jane]

The New World translation is the one created by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Do you realize that?

All JW's realize that.

The reason why the NWT is preferable to me is that God's name ("Jehovah" in English) is restored to the almost 7000 places where the Jews failed to utter it. Even now, looking at the Jewish Tanakh, you can see the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text, but in English it is rendered "The LORD".....this title in no way replaces God's personal name.

Example......Exodus 3:13-15....Jewish Tanakh...
"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:

14God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:

15And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation. טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:"

When you read this passage in an English translation...even the KJV, it is weird to me that they would render Psalm 83:18 with the name "Jehovah" but substitute the title "LORD" in this most important verse. It renders the last sentence completely meaningless.

NASB Psalm 83:18...."So that they will know that You alone, whose name is the Lord, Are the Most High over all the earth."
KJV rendering...."That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth."

Exodus 3:15 KJV...."And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.""
NASB...."God furthermore said to Moses, “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is the name for all generations to use to call upon Me."

Translation has to be accurate, not following the traditions of men, but authentically in strict obedience to God. None of the English translations used in Christendom are correctly translated, making a mockery of the Lord's Prayer...."Hallowed be thy name".
You can hardly sanctify a name you never use.

 

[Deborah_]

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

My vote goes to the NIV. It's the translation that everyone "loves to hate", so why do so many churches in the UK use it? (When I say "So many" I don't have an actual statistic, but every evangelical church that I've worshipped at in the last 40 years has used the NIV. In contrast, use of the KJV has virtually died out.) Plus, it's the default version used by most British evangelical commentaries.

My vote goes to the NIV because it's the best "all-rounder". It's pretty accurate (sometimes closer to the Hebrew/Greek than some so-called "literal" translations), in down-to-earth modern English yet flows well enough to sound good when read aloud in church services.

Of course there are quibbles (there are with every translation - it isn't possible to please everybody). If you want to do some serious Bible study you'll probably want a more literal translation; if you want to introduce an unbeliever to the Bible you might prefer a more idiomatic one. But the NIV seems to have struck the "sweet spot" in the middle of the road. Since I started using it, over 40 years ago, I've never felt the need to use another version (I've learned Greek and Hebrew rather than go to a more literal translation for study). It's the version that I now "think" in and quote automatically. And I would recommend it to other people without hesitation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

A rather skewed version of history, to say the least.
But, in order to avoid a 5-page response - I will deal only with the most dishonest parts above in RED . . .

First of all - let's deal wiith YOUR usage of the term, "Roman Catholic Church". There is no "Roman" Catholic Church - only "The Catholic Chiurch" - which has existed since the time of the Apostles. The term. "Roman" (Latin) simple applies to the Liturgical Rite - of which there are about TWENTY that comprise the ONE Catholic Church, which are ALL in full communion with each other.

A Liturgical Rite is largely a matter of cultural differences, not doctrinal. Some of the other Rites include the Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, Ruthenian, Alexandrian, etc.
Now that we got THAT out of the way - the Cathollic Church - AND the office of the Papacy has been around from the beginning - LONG before there was any Church extablished in Britain.

Ignatius of Antioch was a FIRST century Bishop and a lifeloong disciple of the Apostle John. On his way to be martyred in Rome at the beginning of the second century - he wrote 7 Letters to the Church in 7 locations. In thhose letters, he described the Church of the Apostles, its function, its hierarchy, its beliefs and practiceds. Here is some of what he wrote:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters (priests) as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 107]).

- Follow/obey your Bishops and Clergy - without whom, it CANNOT be called a Church?
- The sole Eucharist?
- The Catholic Church?

The Church was established in Rome by Peter and Paul. This is UNANIMOUSLY attested to by every ante-Nicene Father - Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Peter of Alexandria, Lactantius, to name a few. In his treatise, Against Heresies, Irenaeus, writing in the SECOND century give the names of every Bishop of Rome (Pope) from his own time going all the way back to Peter.

We have the Letter of Clement - the THIRD Bishop of Rome /Pope, writing to the Church in Corinth - making authoritative judgements and decisions for that church. Now - WHY would the Church in Corinth listen to a guy who is the Bishop in another city if he was NOT in charge?
Cyprin of Carthage said it best:

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Soooooo - on WHAT plant did the Church in Britain ever "precede" the Church based in Rome?

 

[Davy]

And another thing brethren in Christ, don't let Catholics try to tell you that the office of the Pope goes back to Apostle Peter. They only try to do that to fool you into believing the origin of the Roman Catholic pope began in the 1st century A.D. with Christ. It didn't. The office of the pope only came about 3 centuries later because of arguments between bishops in different nation locales. So it was agreed to create the office of a "bishop of bishops" later called a pope. That office was thus created for POLITICAL purposes. Lord Jesus NEVER created it, nor did Apostle Peter.

It's important to remember, and this goes for any claimed Christian denomination that teaches men's leaven doctrines that are outside God's Holy Word; if one of their believers puts their trust in those men and their man-made doctrines, then they will likely heed just about any lie they are told for the sake of religion. This includes un-Biblical ideas like the worship of Mary who is not part of The Godhead, praying to angels, praying for the dead, trusting in a talisman (trusting an object to have supposed supernatural power), not repenting to Christ Himself but instead only to a man-made priesthood, doing repetitious prayer with prayer beads, a tradition of men discovered from ancient Buddhism, etc.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The King James Bible is the one I read.

I’ll use modern Bibles for analytical purposes only being aware that the underlying text of these is faulty.

 

[Jim B]

My vote goes to the NIV. It's the translation that everyone "loves to hate", so why do so many churches in the UK use it? (When I say "So many" I don't have an actual statistic, but every evangelical church that I've worshipped at in the last 40 years has used the NIV. In contrast, use of the KJV has virtually died out.) Plus, it's the default version used by most British evangelical commentaries.

My vote goes to the NIV because it's the best "all-rounder". It's pretty accurate (sometimes closer to the Hebrew/Greek than some so-called "literal" translations), in down-to-earth modern English yet flows well enough to sound good when read aloud in church services.

Of course there are quibbles (there are with every translation - it isn't possible to please everybody). If you want to do some serious Bible study you'll probably want a more literal translation; if you want to introduce an unbeliever to the Bible you might prefer a more idiomatic one. But the NIV seems to have struck the "sweet spot" in the middle of the road. Since I started using it, over 40 years ago, I've never felt the need to use another version (I've learned Greek and Hebrew rather than go to a more literal translation for study). It's the version that I now "think" in and quote automatically. And I would recommend it to other people without hesitation.

Thanks, Deborah, for your post. I agree that the NIV is probably the best all-around translation for the reason that you give. I'm not crazy about the TNIV, but I have the NIV in several different formats. One in particular -- "The Books of the Bible" -- is formatted like a regular book, without verse numbers, has the "books" arranged in chronological order, and formats the text logically. It's a very interesting read, although I don't know if it's still in print.

It also highlights how the KJV has distorted things by making every verse a separate item, which of course is strange, considering that they were added to the Bible much later. Most modern Bibles also format the "books" in paragraphs and portraying poetry as poetry, making for better comprehension.

I also don't like so-called "red letter" Bibles, putting Jesus' words in red. But that is another topic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And another thing brethren in Christ, don't let Catholics try to tell you that the office of the Pope goes back to Apostle Peter. They only try to do that to fool you into believing the origin of the Roman Catholic pope began in the 1st century A.D. with Christ. It didn't. The office of the pope only came about 3 centuries later because of arguments between bishops in different nation locales. So it was agreed to create the office of a "bishop of bishops" later called a pope. That office was thus created for POLITICAL purposes. Lord Jesus NEVER created it, nor did Apostle Peter.

It's important to remember, and this goes for any claimed Christian denomination that teaches men's leaven doctrines that are outside God's Holy Word; if one of their believers puts their trust in those men and their man-made doctrines, then they will likely heed just about any lie they are told for the sake of religion. This includes un-Biblical ideas like the worship of Mary who is not part of The Godhead, praying to angels, praying for the dead, trusting in a talisman (trusting an object to have supposed supernatural power), not repenting to Christ Himself but instead only to a man-made priesthood, doing repetitious prayer with prayer beads, a tradition of men discovered from ancient Buddhism, etc.

I see we have yet another student of revisoionist history here.
Aloow me to educate you . . .

The office of the Papacy was established by Jesus Christ, who singgled out Peter (Matt. 16:18) to lead the rest and strengthen them (Luke 22:30-31) and feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19).
The word, "Pope" - which is NOT an official title of the Bishoip of Rome - is simply a term or endearment that means "Papa" (father). This moniker developed over time - NOT the office.

YOUR claim that this office "came about" in the FOURTH century is NONSENSE - and without historical nerit OR documentation. In his treatise, De Pudicitia, Tertullian, whi died in 220 AD, called Pope Callistus, "Bishop of Bishops" and "Pontifex Maximus" - LONG before your inaginary time frame of the fourth century.
So do your hoomework before you post.

As to the last pary of your inance rant - you got pretty much EVERYTHING wrong there as well, starting with your asinine charge of "Mary-worship". It is strictly forbidden in Catholic teachings - as it is in Scripture - to worship anybody or anything other than GOD Himself. This is attested to in gret detail in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in Paragraphs 2083 - 2132.

As to your idiotic objectin to "repetitous" prayer - READ your Bible . . .

- In Matt. 26:44, our Lord himself prayed the exact same prayer THREE TIMES in the Garden of Gethsemane after the Last Supper.

- In the Parable of the Determined Widow in Luke 18:7, Jesus emphatically states that God hears those who keep petitioning him in sincere faith: “Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to him day and night? Will he be slow to answer them? I tell you, he will see to it that justice is done for them speedily.”

- In Luke 18:13, the tax collector kept on beating his breast and praying, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” This was pleasing to God.

- We see in Rev. 4:8 that the angels pray the same prayer day and night without ceasing in the presence of almighty God, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.”

- Psalm 136 goes on for 26 verses in a row, repeating the exact same prayer, “God's love endures forever”.

- In Dan. 3:56-88 we read the exact same prayer for 32 verses, which is “bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.” This is far more repetitious than a decade of the Rosary.

Chew on that for a while - then we'll tacke the others . . .

 

[Davy]

Calling a Protestant a 'Revisionist' is SO LUNATIC!

The Roman Catholic Church are the REVISIONISTS. They even ADMIT that Bible Scripture is NOT the real MEASURE OF GOD'S TRUTH! They are against Sola Scriptura (Scripture Only for Authority).

This is why the Roman Church has had so many men's traditions added to it over the years, even offering indulgences at one time for MONEY claiming to get one's dead loved ones out of purgatory, and as IF their Purgatory really exists!

No wonder Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Church door in 1517 which would later begin the Protestant rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church, a rebellion against the Roman Church's many leaven doctrines of men that had NOTHING to do with God's written Word!

God bless those among the Roman Church that are faithful to Christ, and seek and heed His Word, and do not rely on some man's supposed authority like a "bishop of bishops", nor his political cronies.

And for those who would like to know that the Roman Church are the REAL REVISIONISTS, all one need do is see the documentary Bridge to Babylon with their attack on the British Church of England, and their many revisions of modern New Testament Bibles designed to fit their ecumenical strategies.

 

[OzSpen]

I choose the New World Translation as it is fairly easy to understand, and the translators worked hard to convey the true meaning.

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

 

[Davy]

New Living Translation is based on Wescott and Hort's corrupt Greek New Testament from 1881, and the Nestle-Aland textual critics' Greek text. The New Testament is thus based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Greek texts, Latin Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Syriac Peshitta.

Thus the Majority Texts which make up the majority of existing Greek New Testament texts ARE TOTALLY OMITTED in their new translation. The Majority Texts are so called because they make up the MAJORITY of EXISTING Greek New Testament manuscripts. But textual critics instead try to say the Majority Texts are called that because of the Majority 'text type'. In reality it is only a term used to differentiate the text type of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts vs. other text type which are in the minority, such as the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean text types.

The 1611 King James Version New Testament used the Textus Receptus Greek text based on the Majority Texts. One should think it VERY SUSPICIOUS that such a work as the Majority Text was TOTALLY OMITTED in their new Greek NT translation, especially since they make up the majority of ancient Greek New Testament texts that the early Church used.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Calling a Protestant a 'Revisionist' is SO LUNATIC!

The Roman Catholic Church are the REVISIONISTS. They even ADMIT that Bible Scripture is NOT the real MEASURE OF GOD'S TRUTH! They are against Sola Scriptura (Scripture Only for Authority).

The Bible itself doesn't teach this Protestant fallacy - so why would YOU believe it?
If you believe it IS taught in Scripture - then show me where. Chapter and Verse, please.

This is why the Roman Church has had so many men's traditions added to it over the years, even offering indulgences at one time for MONEY claiming to get one's dead loved ones out of purgatory, and as IF their Purgatory really exists!

Ahhhhh - more of your revisionist lies.

At NO time in histiry did the Church sanction the sale of Indulgences. This was an ABUSE by men like Johann Tetzel in Germany - and one that was condemned by the Chgurch.

A little advice for yoiu: Don't make idiotic claims about the Catholic Church unless you can produce the Documet, Declaration or Decree that prmulgate it.

No wonder Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Church door in 1517 which would later begin the Protestant rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church, a rebellion against the Roman Church's many leaven doctrines of men that had NOTHING to do with God's written Word!

Then you never actually READ Luther's 95 Theses - several of which actually supported Catholic practices.
Do your homeswork before embarrassing yourself any further . . .

God bless those among the Roman Church that are faithful to Christ, and seek and heed His Word, and do not rely on some man's supposed authority like a "bishop of bishops", nor his political cronies.

And for those who would like to know that the Roman Church are the REAL REVISIONISTS, all one need do is see the documentary Bridge to Babylon with their attack on the British Church of England, and their many revisions of modern New Testament Bibles designed to fit their ecumenical strategies.

This, coming from the SAME guys who LIED in post #3 by falsely claiming that the Catholic Church -
- Is called the "Roman" Catholic Church - which I corrected you on.
- Invented the office of the Papacy in the FOURTH century - which I proved WRONG.
- Teaches the "Worship" of Mary - an argument thta I destroyed with the Catechism itself.
- Complained about "Repetitious" prayer - even though I presented several Biblical examples of it

Your ppathertic lies are matches ONLY by ytour incredible ignorance of Scripture and history . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I choose the New World Translation as it is fairly easy to understand, and the translators worked hard to convey the true meaning.

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.