What are your views on Bible translations? Do you accept all of them or only certain ones? Why?

personally, i like to read NIV because it is the best way for me to understand without any paraphrasing and the Message is good for just understanding purposes but it paraphrases too much... I dont like KJV because it gets kinda confusing and such and i dont like the language usage and stuff

There are many good Bible translations: ASV, BBE, CEV, KJV, LITV, NKJV, NIV, and the Amplified, just to name a few. If you read several, generally you will gain an excellent understanding of the scripture you are trying to understand. As to accuracy, this lies between the KJV, NIV, and NKJV. The Amplified tells you a list of words a certain phrase could mean, which I like, but it leaves room for error. The NKJV is just a somewhat modernized version of the KJV, so we can treat them as the same version, basically. So it's down to the NIV and the KJV. Really, the KJV is the most accurate. The way the KJV was transcribed was impeccable. They had a group of scribes copying the same text. If one of them made just one little error, they destroyed everyone's work and started from scratch. As accurate as it is, however, it is still somewhat confusing, with the Elizabethan style speech. The NIV is very accurate, but they changed certain things which they thought was simply an error. For example, in one place (forgive me but I can't think of the reference right off hand) the KJV talks about Solomon having 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, while in a different scripture is says that Solomon has 40,000 stalls for the horses. When the NIV wrote this, they thought it was a mere error and corrected it. Such was not the case. One author wrote of stalls which the horses shared with chariots, which numbered 4,000, while another wrote of stalls which contained just horses, which numbered 40,000. Yet most people understand this to be an error, a contradiction in the Bible, including the authors of the NIV. They are, however, wrong. Now, on the same token, the NIV has corrected errors with the KJV. Like in one place where it talks about the "fowls" in the KJV. I understand this word "fowls" is, in the Hebrew, actually a more general word, meaning "creatures." The NIV corrected this. So, really, I suppose it's up to the reader. If the reader is really seeking God on any particular verse, I'm sure He'll reveal the true understanding of it.

but the NIV is still very accurate... something like how many stalls Solomon had is not something that is all that important.... on the important things, it is just as accurate as KJV, and it also gives some good footnotes and such

[b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] [quote]There are many good Bible translations: ASV, BBE, CEV, KJV, LITV, NKJV, NIV, and the Amplified, just to name a few. If you read several, generally you will gain an excellent understanding of the scripture you are trying to understand. As to accuracy, this lies between the KJV, NIV, and NKJV. The Amplified tells you a list of words a certain phrase could mean, which I like, but it leaves room for error. The NKJV is just a somewhat modernized version of the KJV, so we can treat them as the same version, basically. So it's down to the NIV and the KJV. Really, the KJV is the most accurate. The way the KJV was transcribed was impeccable. They had a group of scribes copying the same text. If one of them made just one little error, they destroyed everyone's work and started from scratch. As accurate as it is, however, it is still somewhat confusing, with the Elizabethan style speech. The NIV is very accurate, but they changed certain things which they thought was simply an error. For example, in one place (forgive me but I can't think of the reference right off hand) the KJV talks about Solomon having 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, while in a different scripture is says that Solomon has 40,000 stalls for the horses. When the NIV wrote this, they thought it was a mere error and corrected it. Such was not the case. One author wrote of stalls which the horses shared with chariots, which numbered 4,000, while another wrote of stalls which contained just horses, which numbered 40,000. Yet most people understand this to be an error, a contradiction in the Bible, including the authors of the NIV. They are, however, wrong. Now, on the same token, the NIV has corrected errors with the KJV. Like in one place where it talks about the "fowls" in the KJV. I understand this word "fowls" is, in the Hebrew, actually a more general word, meaning "creatures." The NIV corrected this. So, really, I suppose it's up to the reader. If the reader is really seeking God on any particular verse, I'm sure He'll reveal the true understanding of it.[/quote] Um.... I don't want to get involved here, so I will say my two cents worth... If you develop your relationship with Christ, and decide what to believe based on your own personal ignorant intellect then there is room to argue... However... when discussing "real" translations ie... KJV NASB NIV NKJV etc... I am not including translations such as "womens lib version" When we read with the Holy Spirit as our guide, and listen to Christ in our hearts, then the version makes little or no difference... So having said that, the NASB is the best translation... it is far more literal, and closer to the original text than the KJV could ever be.. The NASB is a "Direct" translation... this means that it is directly translated from the original text... scrolls... The KJV is a translation of a translation... it took an existing translation and translated it into the common language of the day... it is not directly translated from the original text... although it is also one of the best translations there is... intellectually speaking....

well, if you want to be really literal...download E-Sword from www.e-sword.net It has almost all the versions of the Bible available as add-ons. It is a free download. It has every possible meaning of every Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek word listed. That's the most accurate. :P Consequently, I retract my earlier statement about KJV being most accurate. MaddMatt, you are correct. The NASB and the Oxford Annotated NRSV are very probably the most accurate.

Post edited by: MisterNathan, at: 2006/08/05 23:44

[b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] [quote]well, if you want to be really literal...download E-Sword from www.e-sword.net It has almost all the versions of the Bible available as add-ons. It is a free download. It has every possible meaning of every Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek word listed. That's the most accurate. :P [/quote] I love E-Sword... I use them and have their icon on my desktop... and my desktop is VERY clean... very few icons! You are correct they are a great tool. -Matt

Thanks for the e-sword tip. Very cool.

[b]MaddMatt wrote:[/b] [quote] The KJV is a translation of a translation... it took an existing translation and translated it into the common language of the day... it is not directly translated from the original text... although it is also one of the best translations there is... intellectually speaking....[/quote] The King James Bible was translated from Hebrew (OT), Aramaic (OT portions), and Greek (NT). A translation of a translation would be an English translation of the Vulgate or Septuagint or another earlier translation. These are the only two I can think of right now. Most modern translations have been translated from texts like these, although it does not mean that these were the only ones used. I also have read that people have found errors in the KJV. What are they then? If anyone knows any, then present them. I want to know. I started this thing to find out this kind of stuff, so any help would be appreciated.

[b]lonikelam wrote:[/b] [quote][b]MaddMatt wrote:[/b] The King James Bible was translated from Hebrew (OT), Aramaic (OT portions), and Greek (NT). A translation of a translation would be an English translation of the Vulgate or Septuagint or another earlier translation. These are the only two I can think of right now. Most modern translations have been translated from texts like these, although it does not mean that these were the only ones used. I also have read that people have found errors in the KJV. What are they then? If anyone knows any, then present them. I want to know. I started this thing to find out this kind of stuff, so any help would be appreciated.[/quote] Not to disagree, but a translation of a translation has nothing to do with the english language. The King James Version is about as close as you can get to the original texts. It is the most highly respected, and truest translations that exist. Now, having said that, the King James Version is a translation of a translation. No scholar would disgagree with that statement. No historian would contend that fact. The King James version was the first version translated into English. It was translated from the "Textus Receptus" which were the Greek and Hebrew versions of Scripture at the time. The Textus Receptus were translations of original texts. The original scrolls were not written in modern day Hebrew, and Greek... contrary to popular belief... We refer to the Hebrew and Greek texts as "Byzantine Majority Texts." That is because they were widely accepted as literal translations of the original text. The were widely accepted, and other writings at the time agreed with the Greek and Hebrew translations... The NASB went further back into history, and used as much original text as possible, and used completely different text than that of the KJV... before the scrolls were "TRANSLATED" into Greek and Hebrew. The NASB used such texts as Egyptian scrolls. They also used Greek and Hebrew text, but not the Byzantine Majority Texts... The NASB is considered a "literal translation." As far as errors in the KJV... I know of none, and would never say that there are any. -Matt

Post edited by: MaddMatt, at: 2006/08/08 11:52