Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

[Jim B]

That’s a Wescott & Hort talking point: which is their assumption only. No evidence.

Not when faithful God-fearing scribes handled the copying process. This is where the Spirit guides us into truth; both scribes and readers.

The English language hasn’t changed much in recent years, yet translations keep being made. And by changing words and leaving out scriptures from other manuscripts, how does that “give us the clearest and best understanding” of the text?

Spiritually compromised scholars from the 1800’s until now didn’t have spiritual discernment so they erred in following the wisdom of men when selecting what readings to translate and how to translate them. Thus they selected the worst manuscript witnesses and oftentimes did not even translate what they had very well.

Pedants without prudence.

There is plenty of evidence to show that there were/are scribal errors in the early sources, as well as errors in the early printed versions. There are even sections in the KJV that are questionable: the "long ending" of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the addition of the words to Romans 8:1. They have very little evidentiary support in the earliest and best manuscripts.

Do you actually believe that "spiritually compromised scholars from the 1800’s until now didn’t have spiritual discernment". Really? How deluded can you possibly get????

 

[Michiah-Imla]

evidence

I don’t walk by corruptible “evidence”, I walk by faith.

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.” (1 Timothy 1:4)

“(For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7)

 

[Wrangler]

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.

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.

What a great post! Wonder how many Christians correctly know the name of God.

 

[Aunty Jane]

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

Would you like to give us examples of that? What false doctrines are we taking about here?
Where have we translated what was not written in the original text?

I can give you glaring examples of bias in other versions, especially the KJV.

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.

So its OK with you for some to paraphrase the Bible into more understandable English, as long as it agrees with what you want to believe?

 

[Aunty Jane]

What a great post! Wonder how many Christians correctly know the name of God.

This is the only name that God gave for himself in the Bible....and he said it was to be his name forever.
Exodus 3:15, in most English translations eliminates God's name and follows the lead of the disobedient Jews who were never told to replace God's illustrious name with a mere title. The ASV is one of the few that include the divine name in English.

"The Lord" is WHAT he is...."Jehovah" (Yahweh) is WHO he is.

The Bible is inspired of God...he is its author....so you have to ask what author would ever allows his name to be removed from his own work and replaced with the title, "Author"? That is insulting! So Christendom has a lot of explaining to do IMO....parroting off the Lord's Prayer saying, "Hallowed be thy name.....but never uttering it.

 

[quietthinker]

Which translation do you think is the best English translation?
I would like to ask, which translation do you think is the best Chinese translation?

 

[Wrangler]

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.

Thanks AJ! I never knew this.

I look forward to defenders of changing God's name to explain this.

 

[Wrangler]

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.

And for no apparent reason, you deny God gave his true word to other generations who don't speak the King's Middle English?

 

[Wrangler]

New Living Translation is based on Wescott and Hort's corrupt Greek New Testament from 1881

Not sure where you get this but I hear this claim for all the modern translations.

If you actually read the translators notes, you will find they go back to the original texts and translate from there. They do not make a copy of a copy. Modern translators have far better access to original texts and older manuscripts than those from half a millenia ago. See Dead See scrolls.

 

[Jim B]

And for no apparent reason, you deny God gave his true word to other generations who don't speak the King's Middle English?

There were English translations before the King James version and there have been English translations after the KJV.. Only one was created to glorify a secular king and dictate that his version of the Bible was the only valid one. It was created solely for a political purpose!

It's a real tragedy that people still fall for this version as being the only valid one. More than 400 years later people are still being deluded!

IMHO the best translation of that era is the Geneva Bible. It's very well written and has wonderful marginal notes -- removed by King James! -- that give a great glimpse into their theology. It's no wonder that the Pilgrims fled James' England, bringing their Geneva Bibles with them.

 

[Jim B]

Not sure where you get this but I hear this claim for all the modern translations.

If you actually read the translators notes, you will find they go back to the original texts and translate from there. They do not make a copy of a copy. Modern translators have far better access to original texts and older manuscripts than those from half a millenia ago. See Dead See scrolls.

Great post!

 

[Davy]

And for no apparent reason, you deny God gave his true word to other generations who don't speak the King's Middle English?

How did all those OTHER LANGUAGE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS come about??? Hmm....?

They were mostly translated from the 'same' Old Testament Hebrew texts and New Testament Greek texts which the early Church used. So your anti-KJV theories are simply moot.

 

[ScottA]

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.

If a blindman walked into a Christian bookstore and picked a bible out without any help--it would be perfect whatever version it was.

Such is the providence of God regarding His own Word.

If one is not first drawn to His word by God--it doesn't matter, he is still on the path that God has ordained. If one is first drawn by God to His word--our recommendations are only tertiary (third order). Having said that, I started with a bible that I have no idea of the version, then bought a KJV because it was cheap, then ended up with a NKJV because I was beginning to speak old English in public to the disservice of the gospel.

The path still goes where God has intended. But if one wants to do themselves a favor and perhaps save themselves years of side trips...pick one that is mainstream. God will do the rest.

 

[Wrangler]

How did all those OTHER LANGUAGE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS come about??? Hmm....?

They were mostly translated from the 'same' Old Testament Hebrew texts and New Testament Greek texts which the early Church used. So your anti-KJV theories are simply moot.

Not an answer to my question.

However, you are ignoring the FROM as well as the TO in the translation process. Not only does our knowledge improve of what we are translating FROM, the language people speak changes TO something different over time. I don't goest too much these days. Saith thou?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I don't goest too much these days. Saith thou?

Interesting how people keep becoming more bolder in sin despite all these wonderful new and updated Bibles everywhere (even on our phones!).

And yet even “Christian’s” who have become lovers of the new Bibles are not much better…

Not sure the “Better” updated Bibles are making better Christian’s.

 

[Wrangler]

Interesting how people keep becoming more bolder in sin

Recognizing the flaws in KJV and KJV being an obsolete language is not a sin.

 

[Jim B]

How did all those OTHER LANGUAGE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS come about??? Hmm....?

They were mostly translated from the 'same' Old Testament Hebrew texts and New Testament Greek texts which the early Church used. So your anti-KJV theories are simply moot.

Thank you for actually "telling it like it is", even unintentionally. Yes, modern translations are mostly translated from the 'same' Old Testament Hebrew texts and New Testament Greek texts which the early Church used."

There have been discoveries of time of many scrolls and tablets since the KJV time; the Dead Sea scrolls come to mind. Also the understanding of the languages, gleaned from archeological discoveries, give modern translators a much better idea of what the sources actually mean.

More importantly, modern translators make an effort to relate what the early sources actually mean to our modern minds. Unlike the King James translators, they are not compelled to glorify a secular monarch's idea of how the Bible should glorify him.

 

[Jim B]

Interesting how people keep becoming more bolder in sin despite all these wonderful new and updated Bibles everywhere (even on our phones!).

And yet even “Christian’s” who have become lovers of the new Bibles are not much better…

Not sure the “Better” updated Bibles are making better Christian’s.

Much bolder in sin? You must be joking. How about the punishments meted out against those who didn't go along with King James' propaganda: the Bible justified his monarchial rule? Why do you think the Pilgrims and others fled James' England? They were persecuted for not going along with his tyrannical rule.

It is up to God to make better Christians. Equating modern translations with an increase in sin is total nonsense.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

How about the punishments meted out against those who didn't go along with King James' propaganda

You want to dig up his grave and burn his bones @Jim B ?

Funny that you’re soo inflamed with King James’ “propaganda” but the steaming pile of propaganda from the Alexandrian Text cult eludes your senses.

 

[DavidB]

Interesting how people keep becoming more bolder in sin despite all these wonderful new and updated Bibles everywhere (even on our phones!).

And yet even “Christian’s” who have become lovers of the new Bibles are not much better…

Not sure the “Better” updated Bibles are making better Christian’s.

It’s the singer who is bad, not the song.