Eternal Contradiction
New member
Just the NT, especially the Four Gospels....I think there is less controversy and mistranslations in the NT compared to the OT.
Which bible translation would be best to read the New Testament?
- Thread starter Eternal Contradiction
- Start date
Ranger Dan
New member
For Old Testament or New Testament I prefer the New International Version. A good paraphrased version is easy to read and understand but difficult to quote from.
Zog Blaster
New member
It's tricky, because there are two main factors:
1) 'literal' translation vs 'dynamic equivalence'/ idiomatic translation. That means you choose how far along a spectrum of exactly translating the words, vs translating the ideas into modern, understandable English. Study Bibles will tend to use more literal translations, then add footnotes explaining.
2) doctrinal bias. For example, the New World Translation is the Jehovah's Witnesses translation, 'translated' (they didn't actually use a team of people who knew the languages involved) to fit their own ideas. So it adds words, and chooses to translate the same Greek word differently when it refers to Jesus as opposed to the Father, so that they can point to it and say Jesus isn't God. Less obviously, this goes on in most translations, especially the less literal 'dynamic equivalence' translations. This isn't necessarily intentional: if you're translating an idea rather than a word, you'll choose words based on what you think the idea is. You also lose a lot of subtle nuance.
So, KJV is a more literal translation, but was definitely affected by the doctrine of the translators and the King, and is written in 17th century English. The NIV is very 'dynamic', and so very easy to understand, but it does come from an evangelical perspective, so you can expect ideas to be translated from that perspective. If it's on BibleGateway, you can expect it to fit an evangelical perspective. The Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible are Catholic equivalents.
There are some more ecumenical translations, translated by teams from several denominations who wanted the most accurate translation possible without doctrinal bias, so we could use them together. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) and NRSV are ecumenical translations that tried to be fairly literal, while still being clear. They seem to be popular, and considered to use attractive language. The Good New Translation (Today's English Version) is a 'dynamic' translation that, again, was ecumenical: it's very easy to read, although it makes non-standard phrasing choices rather than parroting the phrases in the KJV, and that bothers a few people. It puts clarity ahead of pretty phrases, and doesn't use words like 'prodigal'. That can be a problem if someone else refers to 'the story of the prodigal son' or 'the ark of the Covenant', and you don't know those traditional names for them, but it isn't usually a big problem.
But really, almost all translations will have the same basic stuff in them, and it won't make a big difference to most things. So find one you like, and understand, and worry about translations when you're familiar enough with the text for it to matter
And, of course, if you just want the pretty phrases that get quoted everywhere, get the KJV.
1) 'literal' translation vs 'dynamic equivalence'/ idiomatic translation. That means you choose how far along a spectrum of exactly translating the words, vs translating the ideas into modern, understandable English. Study Bibles will tend to use more literal translations, then add footnotes explaining.
2) doctrinal bias. For example, the New World Translation is the Jehovah's Witnesses translation, 'translated' (they didn't actually use a team of people who knew the languages involved) to fit their own ideas. So it adds words, and chooses to translate the same Greek word differently when it refers to Jesus as opposed to the Father, so that they can point to it and say Jesus isn't God. Less obviously, this goes on in most translations, especially the less literal 'dynamic equivalence' translations. This isn't necessarily intentional: if you're translating an idea rather than a word, you'll choose words based on what you think the idea is. You also lose a lot of subtle nuance.
So, KJV is a more literal translation, but was definitely affected by the doctrine of the translators and the King, and is written in 17th century English. The NIV is very 'dynamic', and so very easy to understand, but it does come from an evangelical perspective, so you can expect ideas to be translated from that perspective. If it's on BibleGateway, you can expect it to fit an evangelical perspective. The Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible are Catholic equivalents.
There are some more ecumenical translations, translated by teams from several denominations who wanted the most accurate translation possible without doctrinal bias, so we could use them together. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) and NRSV are ecumenical translations that tried to be fairly literal, while still being clear. They seem to be popular, and considered to use attractive language. The Good New Translation (Today's English Version) is a 'dynamic' translation that, again, was ecumenical: it's very easy to read, although it makes non-standard phrasing choices rather than parroting the phrases in the KJV, and that bothers a few people. It puts clarity ahead of pretty phrases, and doesn't use words like 'prodigal'. That can be a problem if someone else refers to 'the story of the prodigal son' or 'the ark of the Covenant', and you don't know those traditional names for them, but it isn't usually a big problem.
But really, almost all translations will have the same basic stuff in them, and it won't make a big difference to most things. So find one you like, and understand, and worry about translations when you're familiar enough with the text for it to matter
And, of course, if you just want the pretty phrases that get quoted everywhere, get the KJV.
Crazy Arab
New member
Read the Koran please stay away from the bible.
Most modern translations are as accurate as possible by using the oldest manuscripts they can find. When compared then, they do quite well. Of course languages change with time. "Gay caballero" hardly comes close to meaning the same today as in the 1950s.
The issue of removal of God's personal name is also a matter of great importance. Not just knowing that most important name in existence, but also clarity while reading the text. This is major because as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 points out, there are many gods and many lords. When the personal name of God is removed and replaced with just a title, who is the scripture referring to? An example is Exodus 34:5-7. Some translations replace his name with God. Others with LORD. Using those, the passage makes no sense, or not enough at least. This is especially true in referring to both Jesus and to his Father. Depending entirely upon spelling LORD or Lord, GOD or god. Not only is one trying to decipher the language of Shakespeare into modern English, but God's name has been systematically removed to add further confusion. Originally, it is in the 66 books making up the Bible over 7,000 times.
An example is a recent new translation was released that cost over a million dollars in research to translate. God's personal name was removed entirely. The publisher admitted the reason they did so was only to sell more copies. If they had left it as originally was, they would only have sold a few copies and never recouped the million and a half costs nor any profit at all.
I would recommend a translation in modern English and one using the divine name that is honest in all things. The New World Translation fits that need.
Honest in as Exodus 28:19 for example. It mentions there a specific precious rock that modern men have no clue to its identity. Usually, there is some clue in other writings. Not with this. So what do they do? Most translations simply make something up. They lie. The NWT though did not want to lie. So it uses the Hebrew word in the text. It remains honest. "19*And the third row is lesh?em stone, agate and amethyst. "
The issue of removal of God's personal name is also a matter of great importance. Not just knowing that most important name in existence, but also clarity while reading the text. This is major because as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 points out, there are many gods and many lords. When the personal name of God is removed and replaced with just a title, who is the scripture referring to? An example is Exodus 34:5-7. Some translations replace his name with God. Others with LORD. Using those, the passage makes no sense, or not enough at least. This is especially true in referring to both Jesus and to his Father. Depending entirely upon spelling LORD or Lord, GOD or god. Not only is one trying to decipher the language of Shakespeare into modern English, but God's name has been systematically removed to add further confusion. Originally, it is in the 66 books making up the Bible over 7,000 times.
An example is a recent new translation was released that cost over a million dollars in research to translate. God's personal name was removed entirely. The publisher admitted the reason they did so was only to sell more copies. If they had left it as originally was, they would only have sold a few copies and never recouped the million and a half costs nor any profit at all.
I would recommend a translation in modern English and one using the divine name that is honest in all things. The New World Translation fits that need.
Honest in as Exodus 28:19 for example. It mentions there a specific precious rock that modern men have no clue to its identity. Usually, there is some clue in other writings. Not with this. So what do they do? Most translations simply make something up. They lie. The NWT though did not want to lie. So it uses the Hebrew word in the text. It remains honest. "19*And the third row is lesh?em stone, agate and amethyst. "
I say use the king James version KJV, It has been translated the least and that is important if you want to understand more of it. the saying lost in translation is true and can make the meaning of a passage different if it is translated too many times. It may be hard at first but with a day or two the old english is a snap. the mormons also have an awesome bible dictionary i think its on their website mormon.org