When comparing Bible translations....?

How about just a few on redemption? There are many.

Luke 9:56 KJV

For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

NIV

And they went to another village

NWO

So they went to a different village.

_______

Matthew 18:11 KJV

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV

Omitted (Why would this verse be left out?)

NWT

Omitted (Why would this verse be left out?)

_______

Matthew 9:13

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

NIV

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

NWO

Go, then, and learn what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.

(NOTE both leave out repentance - The WT is not based on Jesus' gift - see baptismal Questions. They do not see [look upon] Jesus)

_______

John 6:47

KJV

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

NIV

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

NWT

Most truly I say to you, He that believes has everlasting life.

_______

Colossians 1:14 KJV

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NIV

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NWT

by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.

_______

Matthew 18:11

KJV

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV

Omitted (Why would this verse be left out?)

NWOT

Omitted (Why would this verse be left out?)

I think they all are pretty controversial, especially when looking at the New Testament. Koine Greek has so many different translations for a single word.

The most controversial pericope (that I know of) is John 8: 2-11 (the Adulterous Woman). If you look at your Bible, there is probably an asterix there stating that not all translations and scholars agree that this text should be in there. I am thankful it is and feel that it truly shows Christ in the light that he is: Judge, Jury, Executioner, and Forgiver.

If you want to chat or go into more detail about your question (so I can possibly give you some better advice), then please just click on my name/email and fire away. I'll do what I can to help!

Hope this helps!

Good luck, and may God continue to shine on you.

-Shalom

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one".

(this verse is usually 1 John 5:7 in bibles that include it)

it is not In the Original text that is why most modern bibles excude it or leave a foot note. It is a addition that happened because of the false doctrine of the trinity and people wanted "biblical" proof there is a trinity. so they added this verse here. Modern scollars reconize this and Omit it.

No Translation is fully Correct to the Hebrew an Greek, Probably because they have influence from the Translators Beliefs

Bibles i know(at this time) to be Closest the Original Greek and Hebrew:

NASB

The Holy Bible in its Original Order - By Fred Coulter

Troll's answer points out that KJV is controversial...since it varies with other translations, see also NKJV and ESV to make it (KJV) more controversial since KJV also varies with them in terms of the verses mentioned by Troll =)

Even the comparison of phrases "another village" with "different village" is overemphasized. =)

Anyways...

John 1:1, i would say not controversial but misunderstood. Often times NWT is criticized for its translation of this verse, but see also other renditions:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Regarding Acts 20:28, not also controversial, but misunderstood.

1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in

Modern English, by

F. Fenton, London.

1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English

Version, American Bible

Society, New York.

Even if we exclude "Son," it should be understood as Blood of His (God's) own Son.

It agrees with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin” (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.

Even in common language, figuratively parents call their children their own blood, even their kins.

1 John 5:7 - as implied by Troll, KJV renditions are controversial. Scholars acknowledge, that the phrase "and these three are one" was not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse. (see other versions other than NWT).

Good day =)

This is no controversy about John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

However false cults want to make it one since it clearly shows that Jesus is God and false cults reject that.

1 John 5:7-8

KJV: 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

ESV: 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

The extra stuff in verse 7 of the KJV does not appear in any Greek manuscript older than the 15th century.

Acts:20:28

KJV: 28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

ESV: 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[a] which he obtained with his own blood.[b]

a. Acts 20:28 Some manuscripts of the Lord

b. Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his Own

There isn't much controversy that I've heard about this latter one.

There is only one accurate English Translation -

The Holy King James Bible

All the rest are translations from fraudulent copies of the Ancient Scriptures !

Matthew 7:7 and 8 -

KJV - "Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

NWT - "Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you. For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened."

These two verses may not seem controversial although different. But the KJV translation is used to support "once saved, always saved." Whereas the more accurate translation shows that continually seeking God is expected of a Christian - not a one-time conversion and then all is taken care of.

One of the most controversial is Isaiah 7:14. (virgin)

"Evangelical" bibles (I use that term regretfully, but am not certain what term is more appropriate) generally use the word "virgin" in this verse. More literal translations use the word "woman". The problem is this: Matthew quotes this verse (in Greek) using the word "virgin". Matthew is, in fact, quoting the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text from which nearly all modern translations of the Old Testament come. The problem is that with "evangelical" bibles, the translators take the position that any interpretation provided in the New Testament is the accurate translation of the verse - and so they use "virgin" even though it is not really appropriate as a translation for the word used in Isaiah 7:14. Thus, in Isaiah 7:14, "virgin" can be considered a questionable translation at best, and a mistranslation at worst.

Note that this does *not* reflect poorly on Matthew, who not only quoted his source (Greek) accurately, but provided an even narrower interpretation than the one present in Hebrew - showing that Jesus fulfilled the most narrow possible interpretation of that particular prophecy.

Other useful verses:

Exo 3:15 (tetragrammaton)

bibles which go to lengths to provide an accurate translation will use "Yahweh" or some other form of the tetragrammaton in this verse. The JPS Tanakh uses "Hashem" which is unambiguous and therefore very good (but not *as* good). Less concerned translators use the traditional but extremely ambiguous "the Lord" in small caps.

1Sa 1:3 (Sabaoth)

"Sabaoth" is *traditionally* translated as "of hosts" - but this translation is questionable. Better translations, recognizing the multiplicity of possible meanings contained within this word and uncertainty of the traditional translation, will transliterate and allow the reader to assign one or more of the conjectured meanings as they see fit.

2Ch 28:3, Mat 18:9 (Gehenna)

"Gehenna" has taken on the meaning of "hell" but, in fact, indicates a location on earth, the Valley of Ben-Hinnom. Better translations will use the proper name and not engender confusion by using the ambiguous transliteration "Gehenna" (Ironic that the transliteration is more ambiguous than the translation). Some translations continue to use "hell" in the New Testament because of the (supportable) belief that this word is, in fact, symbolic of Christian hell and is not intended as a designation of a valley. A more literal translation allows the reader to make the call.

Mat 16:18 (Hades)

This word is often translated as "hell", but in fact that is a questionable translation in modern English (quite likely not what was intended). Better translations retain "Hades" or use an unquestionable translation (such as "underworld").

Lev 13:1 (leprosy)

The word *traditionally* translated as "leprosy" actually includes several diseases with symptoms that appear on the skin. Better translations will use the more accurate "skin disease" or some other translation which is not restricted to the particular disease leprosy (Hanson's disease).

Isa 14:12 (Lucifer)

Lucifer is a Latin translation of a word that means "morning star" or "day star" or some equivalent (Lucifer lit. "bringer of light"). The problem is that this has been *inappropriately* assigned as a name of Satan. Whether or not you believe that this verse is a reference to Satan, "Lucifer" was never a name used by the original author, who wrote in Hebrew, not in Latin. It is, in fact, a translation that has become used as a name by tradition. If the word in this verse is to be used as a name, a transliteration from Hebrew would be appropriate. Otherwise, a translation into English - not Latin - is appropriate.

Gen 17:3 (El Shaddai)

The traditional - and inaccurate - translation of this title of God is "Almighty God". The meaning is definitely uncertain, but may lie along the lines of "God of the Mountain" or "God of the open wastes". Better bibles will use a transliteration or some more accurate but conjectural translation than the traditional "Almighty God".

Act 12:4 (Easter)

Easter is not an appropriate translation for the word meaning "Passover", even though it is traditionally used only for the Passover at which Jesus was crucified. Better translations retain "Passover".

Joh 14:16 (Paraclete)

The Greek word "Paraclete" includes several meanings, only one of which is the traditional "Comforter" (also: "advocate", "intercessor", "counsellor", "protector", "support"). To limit the meaning of such an inclusive and significant word to a single word - for the sake of tradition - cheats the reader to a significant degree in this particular case. Better translations will use a transliteration.

One of the most important considerations to make when evaluating bible versions is the "canon" of scripture included. In other words, what books are included? All bibles include the "minimal" 66 books, but by far the majority of Christians accept a larger number of scriptures than this minimum. The scriptures in question can be seen here

http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/chart.htm#Footnote...

and a discussion of whether or not your bible should include them is here

http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/dc.htm

Note that many versions offer editions with and editions without these "controversial" scriptures. A strong sectarian bias is often indicated by which scriptures are included in a bible version that does not offer inclusive editions.

Another important point to consider is "gender-inclusive" language. Some versions use gender-inclusive language in passages in which the inclusion of gender is not certain. A very brief article on the subject (PDF format)

http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/Vol%209-...

In my opinion, the gender-inclusive language should *not* be used unless the intention of the author was *certainly* inclusive. Why? Because when Paul uses a word like "brothers", the reader can *easily* and *readily* conclude that it refers to both brothers and sisters **when appropriate to that reader's beliefs**. In other words, using gender-inclusive language is an *interpretation* made for the reader - one with sectarian bias, and one made without the reader's knowledge. If you do *not* use gender-inclusive language, the reader can determine *easily* for himself or herself whether or not to be inclusive on a case-by-case basis. Versions that have been accused of over-zealous use of gender-inclusive language include (but are not limited to): TNIV, NAB, NLT (original).

Here is a more detailed article

http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html

Some verses to use (gained from this article)

Luk 18:29

The author of this article includes, for example, the New Jerusalem Bible in his list of "gender-inclusive" versions - though that particular translation has gained approval for liturgical use within the Roman Catholic Church (the NAB, for example, has not done so on grounds of excessive gender-inclusion and had to be revised to gain approval). A measure of sense needs to be used in this issue: excessively gender-inclusive versions should be avoided. Moderately gender-inclusive versions must be evaluated by the reader.

This was a very interesting question, and caused me to research a valuable tool (comparison verses). Thank you.

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

John 1:1 is such a forgery if Jesus was God than Moses or one of the Hebrew prophets would have foretold of it way back in the Old Testament which they never did. Yahweh God of the ancient Hebrews is the only one and true God.

You can go to this site and find your infhttp://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.htmlo... it is to much for here.