Most accurate Bible Translation

[Guest Butero]

Contrary to what has been stated, I have not bashed the KJV. I could cite from a lengthy list of criticisms of the KJV - but I won't and haven't. I have been critical of the KJV only folks and their positions, and they richly deserve that criticism. I'll repeat a quote of mine from a previous thread that was closed:

Some are rabid to the extent of making the KJV an idol - an object of worship. Those who make KJV only a top priority do God a great disservice. So, I wouldn't care if you disagree with me or not - that would be a cult. We worship God, not an English Translation of the Holy Bible. I think it's time for me to leave this thread before I feel led to start bashing the KJV. Ya'll have fun and consider all the good you're doing. You're preaching the KJV - not Jesus Christ.

You are preaching the gospel of new translations, not Jesus Christ. It is no differen't. Those on your side of the argument are every bit as "rabid," and if we are guilty of making the KJV an idol, you are guilty of making your defense of new translations an idol. In reality, neither of us are in idolatry. We are simply defending what we believe is right.

[Guest Butero]

Jumpin in the mosh pit! Here goes! :)

Warning, long but hopefully "worthy" post!

I was saved after reading a paraphrased Bible from cover to cover. W00T! Glory be to God, thank you Jesus!!!

However, upon looking for more depth, I was not able to find any in that paraphrase.

With the "messy" Message bible being the exception, I can find salvation and oatmeal in the 24 other Bible versions I own.

I do not consider the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses to be a bible from this cult. It removes just about if not entirely the deity of Jesus Christ. I do have it however to understand their lies to prayerfully point them to the Truth of the real Lord Jesus Christ when they come a knockin on my doorstep.

As initially warned, there are those here who prefer the KJV over others who would "bash" NIVs and such.

To some degree, I am one of those "bashers"...

My reason is as follows: In 86 I had purchased an NIV Study Bible in hope in growing in my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Many Christians had told me over the years to trust God and His Word implicitly. I was looking to do just that with my new "study" Bible. But the more I studied, the more I became sorrowful and weary of things like "in the most (so called) reliable manuscripts these verses are not found statements, verses missing, doubt cast on the Lord's Word. I still loved my Savior, however because of this one particular version I would close the Bible for days at a time not knowing what to believe.

The good Lord soon brought to my attention "two Greek" translations. One partially corrupt stemming from "newer transcripts." The other on the up based on the Textus Receptus. Thank God!

It was at this time that I bought the one based on the Textus Receptus Greek, the King James Version Bible. I have not been the same since and I am no longer sorrowful of all those lying footnotes and such in the newer versions.

In the sense of the Greeks that are used to translate the Bibles, the NKJV is one of my stranger Bibles in that it used BOTH of the Greeks, in the N/T it translates with the T/R base, but where it differs in many places from the Majority Text and the Alexandrian Text the variants are recorded in the footnotes. Which could get folks right back to the confusion I had in 86...

I have studied a lot of the versions that I own, but because the NIV with it's footnotes, missing verses, black lines and the temporary sorrowfulness it had caused in my life, I looked to compare this one more than most against the KJV.

Here is just a sampling of some of what I and others like myself have found: (Based on the 77 NIV, there are others...)

-On NIV Mark 16:8 there is a black line following right after it saying: (The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20) They are indeed "not reliable" as the footnote says.

-Between NIV John 7:52 and John 7:53 we see another of these black lines.

The heretical note says: (The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11

-NIV Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not over come it.

Footnote simply says: Peter means rock. Leaves the believer thinking that Peter is the rock that Jesus Christ will build his Church on. This is the same doctrine of the Roman Catholics, that because of this verse, believe Peter to be the first "Pope" of the Catholic church. No, Jesus is the Rock we build the church upon, not a man named Peter.

-NIV Luke 23:43 Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

Footnote reads: Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.

Some things missing from the NIV

KJV Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV 18:11 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 12!!!!

KJV Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

NIV Mark 9:44 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 45

KJV Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

NIV Luke 9:56 and they went to another village.

KJV Acts 28:28 Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

NIV Acts 28:28 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 29!!!

One of many changes:

KJV Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD.

NIV Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature of God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED...

Sadly, I have many more examples on NIV.

This is not just true for the NIV but other "newer" versions as well.

Here is a verse that the majority of the newer versions missed, check it against yours:

1John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

When I have looked for any depth at all I was only able to find it in the KJV Bible.

On those who like the NAS I would say "which one?"

Don't ya know after I had memorized much of the 1977 version I had purchased, and lost, (or possibly stolen, if so may God save their lost soul.) I went to replace it. Only to find out now I could only purchase the "new" and updated and changed 1995 version... I later purchase the 77 NAS electronically for my computer Bible.

I will not provide a link, but this is a few quotes from the homosexual woman that had to do with the NIV translation:

"From her website:

Dr. Mollenkott served as stylistic consultant for the New International Version of the Bible and was a member of the National Council of Churches' Inclusive Language Lectionary Committee. Her Milton Scholarship is discussed in "A Milton Encyclopedia"; her earlier writings are described in "American Women Writers" and her career is profiled in the Millenium Edition of "Who's Who In America".

"Ms. Mollenkott is an active member of the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus and in CLOUT (Christian Lesbians OUT)."

"With her life partner, Suzannah Tilton, Virginia lives in northern New Jersey"

When I pass out Bibles these days, it is the KJV.

Over all, if someone where to ask me which version to buy, I tell them the KJV.

Two modifications have been made since the 1611 KJV. They are printing errors, and changes in English. There were about 400 of these errors.

Gothic type originally used, so todays "changes" are thins like "J" looked like an "I", "v" looked like a "u", "s" looked like an "f". It is only the letters that were written a certain way that has changed. The Words themselves have not.

Spelling has also changed since 1611. Wee is now we. Euill is now evil. There are many more examples of this.

That is the ONLY changes that have taken place, leading it up to today. As far as I know, and others that have studied much more laboriously than I, there are not any textual changes in any KJV, from the 1611 to date.

This is not true of any other version I know of.

When the Holy Spirit teaches us, we are to confirm what He teaches in the Word.

We cannot always do this with the "newer" translations.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter (Holy Spirit) is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, (God the Father) even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of ME: (Jesus Christ, and His Word, the Bible and it rightly divided.)

From the late Dr. Morris, Founder and President Emeritus, Institute for Creation Research:

"I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible for over 55 years, that Christians-especially creationists!-need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed it in the history of England and America, in the great revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers more than He has through all the rest of the versions put together.

The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns."

We are not called to love the Bible, but to love Jesus.

If you don't love the Bible, you can't love Jesus, because he is the Word. Not literally, but the Word tells us of Christ. He wrote the Bible through human vessels. In John 1:1, Jesus is even referred to as the Word.

[Guest Butero]

No translation from one language to another can ever be perfect.

So no matter which version you use, it has fault and opinions/commentary interjected as the translator tries to put into words of another language what they think the author intended to say.

I like something about almost every version you could name. KJV has done as much harm as any of them, implying things that aren't necessarily there and even substituting european theological ideas in places, like using Easter instead of Passover in the book of Acts, and called Jacob, (brother of Yeshua) by the name of the English King who commissioned the KJV (James), and using the word "church" instead of community.

The Old Testament portion of the NIV is the best translation for that, and the New American Standard is the best overall, imo, if you want to keep the "church" flavor. For a more accurate idea of the culture the Jewish New Testament by David Stern was a breakthrough, but now I'm partial to the "Tree of Life" messianic family bible for restoring a sense of the culture and people who brought you the scriptures.

How do you know any of these words are translated incorrectly, seeing we no longer have the TR? We do have manuscripts of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, but unless they are fully trustworthy, and I would argue that they are not, there is no way to prove the KJV was translated wrong.

[Guest Butero]

Back on the old Crosswalk site I saw a very similar discussion to this run dozens and dozens and dozens of pages. When the site finally closed, it was still going strong, generating--as these things do--more heat than light.

I only have have one question to the folks who say "it's the KJV or nothing": how do you reconcile that with the Wykcliffe folks, who translate the Word into various languages? I've seen copies of these, and there are simply some words, phrases, and thoughts which cannot be rendered in say, Maori, or Ukranian, or Inuit.

We don't say it is the KJV or nothing. We say the Textus Receptus was God's original Word, and that any Bible that is not translated from the TR will be inferior to a Bible translated from the TR.

[Guest yod]

How do you know any of these words are translated incorrectly, seeing we no longer have the TR? We do have manuscripts of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, but unless they are fully trustworthy, and I would argue that they are not, there is no way to prove the KJV was translated wrong.

It requires only a little common sense:

1. Paul never observed Easter. "Pascha" means passover and not related to Ishtar, babylonian goddess of fertility in any way.

2. There was never a Jew named "James" in Israel during those days. I've heard that it isn't a lot of difference between Ya'acov being Jacob vs James, but King James preferred James...and the book of Jacob bears the King of England's name now.

3. And I'm sorry if this bugs everyone for me to repeat it, but "church" does not exist in the scriptures. King James demanded that the ecclesiastical term was used instead of the more accurate generic term "community". Many disagreed on that, and in fact it was one of the reason Puritans were persecuted in England, since they were most vocal about it. Tyndale was burned at the stake for not altering this (and other) words from the preferred ecclesiastical terms. I understand that this word "church" conveyed what the community of faith had become, but it is NOT an accurate translation of the original term used OR it's literal meaning.

In other words, it's inaccurate and causes people to assume something that isn't factual.

I could go on...should I?

"Christ" is an accurate translation of the word "christos" but King David and Cyrus of Persia were both "christos"

"Messiah" would be a much better interpretation because that term conveys a specific and unique kind of "christos".

In the interest of accuracy, these are just a few problems with KJV and many other english translations. However, the concept of salvation is still easily grasped and that is what is most important.

[Botz]

Hi again Botz, to save time and to seek to help you see that these modern versions are a disgrace and should be burnt, here is a link that should answer your question regarding the NASB; http://www.hissheep....e_kjv_nasb.html . My point is simple regarding Psalm 12, if GOD has preserved His words then you need to find out what Bible HE has preserved. Have you studied how the AKJV came about and how there were 6 companies of translators as ordered by the King,with roughly each number of men allocated to the translation of each section ? Two were assigned to meet at Westminister, Two at Oxford University, and two at Cambridge University. The first group of 3 companies were assigned the Old Testament, and a second group of two the New Testament. A sixth group was entrusted with the apocryphal works. When each section had completed its tasks,twelve delegates were to be chosen(2 from each company from the entire body of translators). These would meet together to review the entire work. These were the best GOD fearing minds in the land and some were professors of Greek, ancient Hebrew and one man was fluent in 20 languages including Greek ,Hebrew, Latin, German etc. These were no dills Botz, they were scholarly men who feared GOD and honoured the King. You can study these things but many choose not to and remain in ignorance, but if you want to start, then one of the books i have read is " In the Beginning. The Story of the King James Bible and how it changed a Nation, a Language and Culture" -Alister McGrath. Study to shew thyself approved Botz.-2Tim2:15

Thanks TLF....that link you provided is very helpful regarding the differences between the AKJV and the NASB....I had no idea they were so different or that the NASB translators had chopped and changed so many things, I will pursue this and continue to investigate and also see if I can get hold of McGraths book. Cheers. Botz

[Guest Butero]

How do you know any of these words are translated incorrectly, seeing we no longer have the TR? We do have manuscripts of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, but unless they are fully trustworthy, and I would argue that they are not, there is no way to prove the KJV was translated wrong.

It requires only a little common sense:

1. Paul never observed Easter. "Pascha" means passover and not related to Ishtar, babylonian goddess of fertility in any way.

2. There was never a Jew named "James" in Israel during those days. I've heard that it isn't a lot of difference between Ya'acov being Jacob vs James, but King James preferred James...and the book of Jacob bears the King of England's name now.

3. And I'm sorry if this bugs everyone for me to repeat it, but "church" does not exist in the scriptures. King James demanded that the ecclesiastical term was used instead of the more accurate generic term "community". Many disagreed on that, and in fact it was one of the reason Puritans were persecuted in England, since they were most vocal about it. Tyndale was burned at the stake for not altering this (and other) words from the preferred ecclesiastical terms. I understand that this word "church" conveyed what the community of faith had become, but it is NOT an accurate translation of the original term used OR it's literal meaning.

In other words, it's inaccurate and causes people to assume something that isn't factual.

I could go on...should I?

"Christ" is an accurate translation of the word "christos" but King David and Cyrus of Persia were both "christos"

"Messiah" would be a much better interpretation because that term conveys a specific and unique kind of "christos".

In the interest of accuracy, these are just a few problems with KJV and many other english translations. However, the concept of salvation is still easily grasped and that is what is most important.

I know that Paul didn't observe Easter. The Bible never claims he did, in any translation. Easter was simply used as a time reference. You say there was never a Jew named James in Israel at that time. How in the world can anyone know that, and how can that be proven? The original word was Jakobos, and there is nothing wrong with that name being translated James. The idea this was translated James to appease the King is silly to me. It sounds like a myth. I don't believe he was there while the work of translation was taking place. He gave that job to educated men. The word translated as church is ekklesia. It means a religous congregation, an assembly, and a church. This was translated to an English speaking people, and church is just fine. If Christ is accurate, there is no problem, even if you think Messiah would be better.

[Guest yod]

I know that Paul didn't observe Easter. The Bible never claims he did, in any translation. Easter was simply used as a time reference. You say there was never a Jew named James in Israel at that time. How in the world can anyone know that, and how can that be proven? The original word was Jakobos, and there is nothing wrong with that name being translated James. The idea this was translated James to appease the King is silly to me. It sounds like a myth. I don't believe he was there while the work of translation was taking place. He gave that job to educated men. The word translated as church is ekklesia. It means a religous congregation, an assembly, and a church. This was translated to an English speaking people, and church is just fine. If Christ is accurate, there is no problem, even if you think Messiah would be better.

You will obviously think whatever you want to think.

I disagree.

Pascha does not mean easter

Jakobos does not mean James. (That's greek form of Ya'acov - Jacob in English). So it's just a strange coincendence that James was used for the King James bible in your opinion?

And ekklesia does NOT mean church

And the point about Christ is that they didn't mind interpreting (as opposed to translating equitably) on those other terms.

but hey...whatever.

[Guest Butero]

I know that Paul didn't observe Easter. The Bible never claims he did, in any translation. Easter was simply used as a time reference. You say there was never a Jew named James in Israel at that time. How in the world can anyone know that, and how can that be proven? The original word was Jakobos, and there is nothing wrong with that name being translated James. The idea this was translated James to appease the King is silly to me. It sounds like a myth. I don't believe he was there while the work of translation was taking place. He gave that job to educated men. The word translated as church is ekklesia. It means a religous congregation, an assembly, and a church. This was translated to an English speaking people, and church is just fine. If Christ is accurate, there is no problem, even if you think Messiah would be better.

You will obviously think whatever you want to think.

I disagree.

Pascha does not mean easter

Jakobos does not mean James. (That's greek form of Ya'acov - Jacob in English). So it's just a strange coincendence that James was used for the King James bible in your opinion?

And ekklesia does NOT mean church

And the point about Christ is that they didn't mind interpreting (as opposed to translating equitably) on those other terms.

but hey...whatever.

In all three cases, my Greek Dictionary says they can mean what they say in my KJV Bible. Pascha can be translated Easter. Jakobos can be translated James. Ekklesia can mean church. And yes, I do think it is a silly myth that Jakobos was translated to James just to appease King James. Regardless, the main reason why I trust the KJV over the other translations is that it came from the TR. Even if you are correct about these words, and I don't believe you are, so what? They are very minor things, and I would still trust the KJV Bible over any translation not coming from the Textus Receptus. It is really as simple as that.

Also, I am convinced that Satan is behind all the new translations. His purpose is to breed confusion by creating one translation after another that disagrees with each other. That will cause people to distrust the accuracy of scripture. It also opens the door for intentional abuse, as with the TNIV. If I had no other reason than that to be KJV only, I would be dogmatic in my opposition to new translations on that basis alone. The acceptance of new translations allows for less absolutes. You will eventually be able to find a translation that backs up any position you want to believe with regard to any doctrine, or regarding what is sinful.

[Guest yod]

In all three cases, my Greek Dictionary says they can mean what they say in my KJV Bible.

then your greek dictionary was written by greeks who don't know squat about hebrew. I did find that earlier translations into english also used the word "james" so I concede your point about it not being an order from the king or translators sucking up to him. However, I don't think those earlier translations were informed about the hebrew name Ya'acov. Evidently Ya'acov being translated into french and then into english gave us "James". This has an equivalent meaning but I still don't think it's the most accurate word usage. Why use a french version to translate from?

FYI, I like the KJV over most translations for it's poetic sounding old-english language but end up using the NASB mostly.

That isn't to say that I endorse any other translations necessarily, but I just don't understand why people will deny that there are some bad renderings in the KJV.

All translations have them.

Currently I'm enjoying "Tree of Life" messianic family bible.