Which English Language Bible is the most correct to you?

Interesting question!

IMHO, the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) currently holds that place - however, I recognize that it is only my opinion. I cannot determine the accuracy objectively as I am not an expert ancient languages scholar in the languages present in the most authentic source texts. Nevertheless, the NJB appears to choose words to convey precise meaning in a way that I have not seen in other versions. I also am very impressed with the footnotes and reference notation system found in the Regular Edition of the NJB. See my full review here http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm

Unfortunately, the NJB was last updated in 1985. There is a new English translation in the works http://ebaf.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=... . In the meantime, I cannot say that I have been wholly satisfied with any of the more recent versions.

The New American Standard Bible gets high marks for its word-for-word literal translation style, but this does not lend itself readily to accuracy of meaning, and there has been no attempt to include the "apocrypha" in any NASB edition.

The Oxford Annotated NRSV has superb study notes (at least on par with the NJB Regular Edition), but the translation is rightly questioned on accuracy because of its over-zealous use of inclusive language. The inclusiveness of pronouns should be the purview of the reader, not the translator. The TNIV suffers a similar gender-inclusive excess.

I have heard good things about the CEV and have a e-book copy now. Although not a study bible, it is supposed to be a very well-done translation with emphasis on ease of reading. It is also "complete" (unlike the NIV), and has about 20 years advance on that worthy (though abridged) version.

I cannot agree with the claims of accuracy for the NWT. Although a useful study bible, with a moderate amount of excellent study notes, the well-documented replacement of source text "Lord" with "Jehovah" marks this as a bible whose text cannot claim real *accuracy of translation*. When the documentation concerning these changes is taken into account, and the Jehovah's Witness bias as well, this can be considered a quite respectable translation. See my review here http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/nwt.htm

Older versions - KJV (and its revisions), Vulgate, Douay (and its revisions), Geneva - can no longer make any reasonable claim to accuracy when compared to modern translations. The KJV was excellent for its time, but biblical scholarship and archaeology have advanced our knowledge significantly in the last 400 years.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

I'm currently reading a KJV, but only because I'm studying the Bible as a literary work and the KJV has had the most influence on literature. However, it is a terrible translation for modern English. Very few people can read Elizabethan English. If they could, I would have less of a problem with people using it because they would be able to actually understand the words. Language changes, the KJV needs to be updated.

I like the NASB and NIV for actual accuracy. If I ever needed to know what a verse actually said and I didn't feel like translating, I'd use one of those.

As for my religious affiliation, I'm an atheist.

How accurate is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures:

Old Testament:

In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:

"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn

Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair

Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion

Northern Arizona University

(Please note that according to Dr. Jason BeDuhn, only the NWT translated John 1:1 correctly)

.

Well it depends let me explain.

There are two major types of translations:

1. Word for Word: That is the best equivalent ENGLISH WORD for the Original GREEK or HEBREW Word.

2. Dynamic Equivalent: That is the best equivalent ENGLISH PHRASE for the Original GREEK or HEBREW phrase.

Both methodologies of translation are very good and can be very accurate. The reality is most translations will involve a litte bit of both of these methods.

Also its important to have a modern committee translation. That is a translation that has been published in the last 50 years and was created by a committee of various scholars from different religious backgrounds.

The importance of a recent translation is because in the past recent years we have found some more reliable greek and hebrew manuscripts that modern translations reflect in their works. The most famous example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. I believe they are the oldest collection of Old Testament Manuscripts to date. Not sure about that last statement though.

So the BEST translation for a WORD for WORD methodology is

NASB: The New American Standard Bible (1995 update) (really no debate about that)

The BEST translation that uses a DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT is

NIV: The New International Version

There is probably a little bit of debate about the NIV being the best of dynamic equivalents, but manys scholars will use the NIV for their study. The New Living Translation is also a very good translation, but I personally think it takes a few too many liberties with the text.

I personally use the NIV and the NASB primarily.

Also, a easy to read version is THE MESSAGE, however this is NOT a translation!!! It is a paraphrase.

I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses- our Bible translation is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. I like it the best but I use many different translations. The NWT is easiest for me to comprehend and it restored God's name Jehovah to it's proper places of honor.

I heard it said a few weeks ago that "Recently on Jeopardy on TV, the questions was- What is the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures? No one got the correct answer, so Alex Trebek said "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, printed by Watchtower Bible Tract Society."

I LOVED that, because it was some good support for a change... but after researching it, it seems it may be an Urban Myth. (I'm submitting a question to Snopes- hopefully they'll learn the truth.) Did anyone happen to see the Jeopardy episode in question?

In terms of preserving the nuances in the original language (even at the expense of slightly awkward English on occasion) the New American Standard Bible.

I've read up on the anti-Westcott and Hort textual arguments of the KJV supporters and do not consider them valid.

For English that is a delight to read, the J B Phillips New Testament paraphrase has not been surpassed, but its purpose should not be mistaken.

Affiliation?

Ex-Christian atheist.

They're good in different ways, for different things. Since (taking only the new testament) Christ spoke, I believe, Aramaic, and the people who wrote, wrote in Greek, which was not even their first language, there's bound to be a certain amount of variety in translations, whether they're into English, Swahili, Japanese, or whatever.

I don't understand how someone can think -any- English version is "God's true words," when not a word of the bible was originally written in English. Jesus Christ is God's true Word -- all the rest is commentary.

I am an Episcopalian.

King James Version

1-3 "And now this indictment, you priests! If you refuse to obediently listen, and if you refuse to honor me, God-of-the-Angel-Armies, in worship, then I'll put you under a curse. I'll exchange all your blessings for curses. In fact, the curses are already at work because you're not serious about honoring me. Yes, and the curse will extend to your children. I'm going to plaster your faces with rotting garbage, garbage thrown out from your feasts. That's what you have to look forward to!

By "Jehovah's Witness" you mean the New World Translation?

I have several of the listed translations, but I prefer the NWT. It has modern day English and JEHOVAH is put back where it was removed in many of the other translations.

My KJV has too many thees, thous, and thys, they distract me.