Tuesday, 05 January 2010
-
Bible Versions: Which Is Most Accurate?
I've noticed recently since I've been looking more into Christianity that the version of Bible you read seems to make a difference. I've always thought that all of the versions were pretty much the same -- or that some of them were easier to understand because of the way they were translated -- but that all were translated the same.For instance, I thought there was no difference between the King James Version of the Bible and the New International Version, except simply that the NIV version was written in the common language so that it is easier for readers to understand than the KJV Bible.
Since I've been rooting around in the faith, however, I've noticed that this seems to not be so. The version of Bible does matter if you are looking for translation accuracy, and I've also learned that many people, Christians and non-Christians, seem to be of the opinion that the KJV Bible is probably the worst translated out of them all.
I don't know if this is true or not. I don't know enough about it to figure it out, nor am I very versed in the difference in translation and what would be more accurate than something else.
Does the version of Bible actually make a difference in the accuracy of translation? If it does, which version of the Bible is the most accurately translated? Is this something that is so under debate that it really only depends upon whom you talk to?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: tracezilla@lovelyish
- Name: Traci
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 1795 Comments: 0 112 View all posts by tracezilla@lovelyish
Comments (111)
Your Bible is missing seven books. That is all. (we discussed this on the original post
)
@scrambledmegsntoast@xanga - I've got that Bible (Dryden and Cambridge)!
English - King James
Spanish - Reina-Valeria
French - Segond
Portuguese - Almeida
Chinese - He-He Ben
German - Luther's Original Translation
These are the ones I use. I've been studying the King James for nearly eleven years, and find it to be the most accurate in English; ditto that for the rest (though I've not studied them quite so long, save the Spanish Reina-Valeria). In the doctoral course I'm in, the King James has proved, again, to be the best and most accurate...
I actually own the Complete Jewish Bible in the bottom left corner. It was a birthday gift, I don't think I would have picked it out on my own because the sprinkling of yiddish (yiddish?) terms throughout the New Testament to make it seem more Jewish ruined its credibility for me...but since I own it now and I love the person who gave it to me I still read it.
The KJV is literal. Since language is a changing, fluid thing, it is essential that the Bible account for the idioms and figurative language. That's why many prefer the NIV--it accounts for similes and metaphors that the KJV misses. Many people also like the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) as well as the English Standardized Version (ESV). If you're going for mostly meaning and are looking for a translation that makes the Bible as understandable as possible while still looking at the original Greek and Hebrew, the New Living Translation is nice.
I have a parallel Bible--it has the NIV, NLT, NASB, and NKJV (New King James--less of the literal stuff) all side-by-side. It was nice to see the differences between translations, especially for my Bible classes (I went to a Christian college). I love it, and it only cost about $35 new, which is a pretty great price.
http://www.amazon.com/Todays-Parallel-Bible/dp/0310918367/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262749931&sr=8-1
Sometimes things get lost in translation. I was reading this the other day. Hmm.. oh. Here is the site that I was checking out. A discussion of each translation.
I personally use NKJV. I always thought KJV was the reliable source -- then again, I am not a Bible translator.
I'm a fan of the NASB and RSV for studying. For basic communicating of scripture to people I go between NIV, NASB, and Message (for really basic language).
Good free resource is e-sword. Download lots of versions (including Greek and Hebrew) and commentaries.
@arenfro@xanga - Oh, and the reviews of this Bible on Amazon should also help you out, so be sure to look at them! Good luck.
I like NRSV. However, when I was in my Greek classes, I thought that ESV was the closest translation. KJV isn't absolutely horrible, but it isn't that great, either.
While the language of the KJV is outdated and probably a turn-off for people investigating Christianity, it does have some pluses. One is that it is not copyrighted, so, no one is getting any royalties for its distribution. Another advantage is that it is a literal translation, meaning that each word represents a corresponding word in the original Greek or Hebrew text. Strong's Concordance and Theological Word Book of the Old Testament are geared toward Bible Study using KJV, so, if you intend to dig into the original words, even if you are using a more modern translation, you will probably have to go through the KJV one way or another. Personally, I like NASB, I think it is best of both worlds and they have some good notes. A good rule of thumb is that if you have to keep checking other versions or word origin because you don't think your version is telling the whole story, you should probably consider using a different version.
Traci, the OP, asked about the Catholic Bible vs. Protestant Bible on her original post, so I guess I can just respond here. Catholics in the US use the New American Bible in Mass (not to be confused with the New American Standard Bible), which is the version authorized by the USCCB. The other most popular Catholic Bible is the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition. A lot of American Catholics use the Jerusalem Bible, also. The traditional Catholic Version is the Douay-Rhiems, which is an English translation of the Vulgate.
We all know the KJV is wrong - it was translated by the Brits.
Well I'm using the ESV Study Bible, and it does me just fine. Though I was raised on KJV, the ESV is much easier to read and understand.
Since hebrew(and greek) is a more complicated language than english, none of the translations are perfectly accurate. Different translations have just taken a different methodology when translating. On one end you have the so called "literal" or word-for-word translations like KJV and ESV, which do their best to replace the hebrew/greek words with accurate, corresponding english words. This doesn't really take into account idioms or slang, among other things, but you generally get all the words.
NLT and NIV are more thought-for-thought... that is, the translators figure out the intended meaning of a sentence or phrase, and then put it in words that convey the same meaning in english. This often makes things easier to understand, but it does run the risk of some interpretation on the part of the translators.
In the end, you just have to pick the one that works best for you, though it is highly recommended to use multiple translations (especially 1 of each of the word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations, at least) to sort out anyhting that is questionable or unclear. Or, learn hebrew and greek and study the original text. If you worry too much about the translation, you can lose focus on what's important - God's word.
I recommend the KJV for anyone, as long as they live in the 1600s. (However, even the Elizabethans agree it's not as good as the Geneva Bible.)
There is no such thing as an absolutely perfect translation of anything, let alone the Bible. Languages just don't have that kind of one-to-one word equivalency. So the "best" translation is the one that makes you want to read it the most (and that doesn't deliberately distort the meaning for its own doctrinal agenda, thank you very much Watchtower folks).
If literal accuracy is your biggest concern, the NASB hasn't been beaten yet (imho). But it's always a good idea to have another translation or two on hand to find alternate readings.
I'm surprised to see so many people who like the KJV so much. To the best of my knowledge, it is a very inaccurate translation. It was not translated from the original languages, but the Latin Vulgate.There are many discrepancies concerning the Latin Vulgate's accuracy, since it is not based on the oldest known original language texts. The NASB is probably the most accurate, but because of it's commitment to being word for word it can be difficult to read, because the wording does not always have a natural flow.(I actually find it much easier to read the KJV than the NASB) The NIV is pretty good, but it is thought for thought, which means some words that could be important to the text may be left out. As Astrofox@xanga pointed out it's gonna be one or the other. Ease of reading usually means less precise word translation. However, Precise word translation will typically make it more challenging to comprehend the overall thought being conveyed, so often times I find thought for thought helps put entire passages in perspective.
But ultimately, most major translations are all consistent in conveying the basic message of the person of God and the Gospel of Christ, and that is what is most important.
The only time it matters how literal a translation is, is when you are trying to sort out the exact meaning of something in particular. And even then, no one translation can offer that; you get the meaning best in such a situation when you compare multiple translations.
I look at it this way: The writers in the New Testament often quoted Old Testament passages from the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). The Greek Old Testament is so different from the Hebrew that even when translated into English, I can tell when they're quoting from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Old Testament. And these are the guys who wrote the New Testament! If they weren't so concerned about perfect accuracy, why do people today make such a big deal about it?
The Bible is for leading us to God; we are not following the Bible, we are following God. Using the Bible as a proof-text for various beliefs is turning it into something it was never meant to be.
P.S. I have been reading the Good News Translation for about 30 years. It's not the most accurate, but it's the most alive to me, with wording that I can remember. When I want something more literal (for research), I use Holman Christian Standard or ESV.
from an academic viewpoint, the KJV is the absolute worst. sure, it sounds pretty........ but red flags should go up immediately upon reading Matthew 28:1.
i'm not sure what specific translation it is, but for school i use the New Oxford Annotated Bible. it's stellar.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - why matthew 28:1??
The more complicated answer is that this is a mess.
First, there is a scale of "literalness" and what is called "dynamic equivalence," which is often called a "paraphrase." No translation is completely consistent in its approach, but there are overarching tendencies. It is quite possible for the text to be distorted by either case.
For example, Romans 5.12 asserts that sinned reigned "because" or "so that" we all sinned. The Greek here is ἐφ' ᾧ, eph o, literally "in which." This has been mistranslated in the past in a literal fashion, but it doesn't mean "in which," but either "because" or "so that." The literal translation failed to recognize an idiom and thus misrepresented the text. It is a gaffe in the Old Latin that St. Jerome had to fix (which, sadly, St. Augustine relied on).
A less literal translation can also cause problems. The NRSV is an excellent translation in many respects, but frequently translates "Son of Man" as "Human Being" or some such. This is laudable, because it frequently means that...but it obscures some of the theological points made when the Gospels reference these texts.
The next problem is doctrinal bias. Translators are human beings. They have prejudices and biases, and they have doctrines they believe to be true. The text complicates things, because very frequently one must choose a single way to translate things (e.g. Romans 5.12 cited above has two potential translations for ἐφ' ᾧ). Sometimes there are doctrinal prejudices that cause them to change the text altogether. The NIV has an interesting case of this with παράδοσις, pardosis. The word means "that which is handed down." A baton would qualify as a paradosis. In the NT the word almost exclusively means "tradition" (this is a Latin word, traditio, which means the exact same thing, but which we imported into English; I would favor a phrase like "what was handed down" over "tradition" since it is more accurate and loses nothing). The NIV translators came from a religious background that viewed tradition negatively. Consequently, they deliberately translated every positive reference to Christian tradition in some other fashion (e.g. "teaching" rather than "tradition" in II Thess. 2.15) and consequently eliminated the pesky problem from their translation of the Bible. Most translations have problems like this. Usually it isn't so blatant as this.
Then there is the question of text-type. That, however, would require a lot more discussion.
Personally, I use the New English Translation of the Septuagint, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the New King James for my Old Testament and for the New use the NKJV, the EOB, and the New Jerusalem Bible. Each one has its uses. Of the popular translations I strongly dislike the NIV, the Living, and the Message.
I'll reiterate, use what your church uses. I don't recommend you use the New English Translation of the Septuagint. It's so literal that it's almost unreadable. I doubt your interests would coincide with the ones that make it useful for me. Likewise, do not use the KJV. It has several problems, but the most important one is that the language is just too archaic. As you can see, your question is more complicated than it seems.
Thomas Jefferson's version
@subSacred@xanga - I agree wholeheartedly on what you said about KJV. Those I do know in seminary have told me that KJV is definitely NOT the one to use just because it's been translated from Latin. By translating Greek to Latin then to King James-version English and finally to modern day English, there is a huge possibility of misinterpreting a phrase and thereby pervading the Word.
As followers of Christ, the Word really tells us on how we should conduct our lives. If something is misrepresented and we follow the misrepresentation, we are not following the guidance of the Word, but a pervasive version of the Word. Now, this may be an exaggerated concern, but to some extent, this concern is highly possible.
As a student, I would argue for the NASB or the ESV which is highly used and supported by Reformed theologians because of its literal translation. I would rather have a literal translation than a poetic reading, because the Word is not entertainment, it's our daily bread.
If we forgo the daily bread for something else, aren't we in danger of losing the focus which is that Christ saved us from our sins and we are now redeemed?
@scrambledmegsntoast@xanga - Don't you mean ten books? ;)
@subSacred@xangaand@sammysosa9004@xanga - The KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew. The title page itself says as much, "Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations diligently compared and revised." Vulgate readings are retentions of earlier translations, not new ones. In fact, in the NT, the KJV represents a Byzantine text-type in the NT. "The" Vulgate represents a Western text-type in the NT (it is not a homogenous text-type, so I put "the" in parenthesis since it is an over-simplification).
Compare Luke 11's Our Father in a Douay-Rheims and in the KJV. You'll see quite a difference in the two (the KJV has several Matthean interpolations that the DR does not). The DR was translated at roughly the same time as the KJV and was based on the standard Vulgate text of the time. The KJV is not based on the Vulgate. That claim is a myth.
The KJV is not a good translation for people today even with the myth busted. It is too archaic, was politically motivated (and thus slanted), and the scholarship of the day didn't know as much as we do now.
I personally use the ESV. Anyone who has been to my site, knows that I post out of the ESV most of the time. I only use the KJV if I plan on using Strong's concordance in order to define the original greek. I think for the most part, the different translations have the same meaning, although they use different words to get there. For instance, did you know that the KJV mentions smoking?
Genesis 24:64 "And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel."
Now, for the most part, I think everyone knows what is really meant by "lighted off" but when I am teaching sunday school, it is easier for me to read that verse in the ESV
Genesis 24:64 "And Rebekah lifted up here eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel"
Like I said, they say the same thing. She got down off the camel. Does it really change anyone's theology if she lighted off or dismounted? Am I going to hell if I tell the kids she got down off the camel? Why are we focused so much on which word is used, as long as it conveys the message that God wants?
There is only one instance, that I have seen where the KJV and the more modern translations disagree with each other. and that is in the book of Acts
Acts 12:4(KJV) "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Acts 12:4(ESV) "And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people."
Herod had evidently captured Peter and was intending to bring him out in front of the people at a particular holiday. The question is which one?
The translators of the KJV chose Easter, while the newer translations tend to use Passover.
The word that is used in that passage, is the same word that is translated as Passover in the KJV in every verse except one and that one exception is Acts 12:4. Why did they change how they translated that word? I am not sure, but if you have multiple times where the same word is translated the same way, and then all of a sudden it is not, I would be questioning why they changed. I think Passover here is a better translation.
But if you are translating, shouldn't it be word for word? what is so hard about reading a word and then finding out what it means in your language and writing that meaning down? shouldn't it be obvious in the original greek as to which Holiday is mentioned?
It might seem so, to people who do not know a foreign language, but it really is not that simple. Take for instance the spanish word for child. The spanish word for a female child is the word Nina (minus an accent mark that I cannot seem to figure out how to add using my english keyboard) The spanish word for a male child Nino (minus the same accent mark) The Spanish word for a group of male children is Ninos. However the spanish word for a group of children for mixed gender is the word Ninos. So if you are translating from spanish into english, you have to read the whole section to figure out if the Ninos that are mentioned are all male or a group of mixed gender.
Let me add one more quick part that may help. In English the verse Romans 3:23 (ESV) is written "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" in the Spanish translation Reina-Valera the same verse is translated "por cuanto todos pecaron y están destituidos de la gloria de Dios"
The words "fall short" in English are translated into Spanish as the one word "destituidos" So if you were translating from Spanish into English you would translate it "fall short" but that is not the literal spanish to english translation. If you wanted to be literal you would translate it into the english word "destitute" For all have sinned and are destitute of the glory of God.
So, when they translated for the KJV. which way were they translating? were they going for a literal translation, or the way that it would best be understood by the people? One more translating from Spanish into English and I will end this comment. If someone were to hand you something in Mexico and you wanted to thank them, you would say "gracias" they in turn if they had any manners would reply "De nada" Now if you were translating a story from spanish into english, you would translate the two comments into "thank you" and "your welcome" because that is how we would understand politeness to be in that situation. But the word De nada does not mean "your welcome" in English. In English the literal translation of De nada would be "it was nothing"
So when the KJV translated the word into Easter, were they going for the most literal translation, or how the people of that time would have understood the word in the culture of the day?
That is why I do not mind reading the Bible in other translations, it gives me insight into what the people of the time the translation were thinking or trying to say, by the words they chose to use when they did the translating.