Most accurate Bible Translation

[godrulz]

'The Message' is one man's paraphrase. It is surprisingly fresh, but not a study Bible. What verses are blatantly heretical? Eugene would likely affirm the basic creeds of the church. NWT (JW) is heretical, but Message is just not literal.

[Peri]

What verse isn't heretical? Genesis 1 is heretical, for starters. "Earth was a soup of nothingness" ????????????? I know it's not meant to be a translation, but that's some pretty sloppy paraphrasing. Soup implies that there was some form and that it was not void, which is an opposition to what actual translations say. It can't be both like soup and formless.

'The Message' is one man's paraphrase. It is surprisingly fresh, but not a study Bible. What verses are blatantly heretical? Eugene would likely affirm the basic creeds of the church. NWT (JW) is heretical, but Message is just not literal.

[L.J.]

I had used the KJV and NKJV for a few years. I was told that the KJV was THE Bible. I started looking at different translations and I really like the NASV. I like the fact that that the translation team was from different denominations, unlike the KJV, who was translated by members of the Church of England. Though I don't think it's a very bad translation, I just want something that doesn't have one denominations slant.

Also I think it is strange that some people don't like one person translations of the bible like the message (which I find as horrible) yet they have no problem with one man translating the ancient manuscripts like Erasmus.

Saying all this, I don't think any translation is perfect. I wish we had a word for word translation that used modern English that used the majority text. The KJV and NKJV are both from Erasmus's received text which is not the majority text. To see the differences just check out the notes in the NKJV.

[He giveth more grace]

Truth about modern "bible" versions

For 1800 years before the King James Bible various Bibles used the "Textus Receptus" (Received Text) and then the KJB used the TR, the KJV celebrated it's 400 year since it was first published. The text, or manuscrip, that the Modern Versions are based is called the Codex Sinaiticus was rediscovered around 1900. It was so riddled with corrections and omittals that the monks of St. Catherine monastery was useing pages of it to light their stoves. 95% of the ancient copies agree with the TR while only 5% agree with the Codex Sinaiticus.

The KIng James Bible is the best we have in the English lauguage, it is in effect The Bible for the English lauguage, let me be clear, the KJB is the only Bible in English.

[godrulz]

What verse isn't heretical? Genesis 1 is heretical, for starters. "Earth was a soup of nothingness" ????????????? I know it's not meant to be a translation, but that's some pretty sloppy paraphrasing. Soup implies that there was some form and that it was not void, which is an opposition to what actual translations say. It can't be both like soup and formless.

'The Message' is one man's paraphrase. It is surprisingly fresh, but not a study Bible. What verses are blatantly heretical? Eugene would likely affirm the basic creeds of the church. NWT (JW) is heretical, but Message is just not literal.

That is fairly subjective. Soup out of a can is not organized like a dictionary. The rest of the chapter affirms Creator/creation, not denies it. You are being picky. Is that the best you got?

[godrulz]

Truth about modern "bible" versions

For 1800 years before the King James Bible various Bibles used the "Textus Receptus" (Received Text) and then the KJB used the TR, the KJV celebrated it's 400 year since it was first published. The text, or manuscrip, that the Modern Versions are based is called the Codex Sinaiticus was rediscovered around 1900. It was so riddled with corrections and omittals that the monks of St. Catherine monastery was useing pages of it to light their stoves. 95% of the ancient copies agree with the TR while only 5% agree with the Codex Sinaiticus.

The KIng James Bible is the best we have in the English lauguage, it is in effect The Bible for the English lauguage, let me be clear, the KJB is the only Bible in English.

KJV-only is a heretical teaching that is not evidence based. Don't believe everything you read on the net. http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Version-Debate-Realism/dp/0801024277

[L.J.]

ok Monarchy,

let me get this straight, your saying that for 1800 years prior to the King James version Christians used the recieved text?

King James was translated in 1611.

1611 minus 1800 would be 189 bc.

So if I am understanding you right, your saying that we had the New Testament prior to Christ's birth.

Erasmus didn't even publish the first part of the recieved text till 1514.

Now while I agree with you that the Codex Sinaiticus has issues, so does the King James.

As far as the King James being "the Bible", it was not the Bible of the Pilgrims when they came to America. They used the 1599 Geneva Bible. So I guess not everyone thought the King James was fit.

Please, don't get spoon fed by KJV-Onlyists. Keep an open mind and truly do your homework. If you prefer the KJV, that is great. Many a soul has been saved by it. Just as many a soul has been saved by the Living Bible and the NIV.

BTW, I am a former KJV-Onlyist.

[Watchman Neo]

Thank God we have His Spirit to guide us, else we'd be at the mercy of the fallible, human translation committees!

The illumination of the Spirit does not negate the need for textual criticism and hermeneutics (believers who are equally capable, godly differ on a myriad of biblical issues/exegesis, not to mention the cultic problems with twisting Scripture).

Actually, the disagreement between scholars highlights the imperative need for Spiritual illumination. The best translation in the world is useless without the guidance of the Spirit.

WN

[Peri]

No, that not the best I have. I was starting at the beginning. However, I don't have the time (or the desire) to go verse-by-verse through the entire Bible to point out the thousands of ways that The Message is an error. Since you don't seem to want to change you mind anyway, I doubt that anything that I could say would help.

What verse isn't heretical? Genesis 1 is heretical, for starters. "Earth was a soup of nothingness" ????????????? I know it's not meant to be a translation, but that's some pretty sloppy paraphrasing. Soup implies that there was some form and that it was not void, which is an opposition to what actual translations say. It can't be both like soup and formless.

'The Message' is one man's paraphrase. It is surprisingly fresh, but not a study Bible. What verses are blatantly heretical? Eugene would likely affirm the basic creeds of the church. NWT (JW) is heretical, but Message is just not literal.

That is fairly subjective. Soup out of a can is not organized like a dictionary. The rest of the chapter affirms Creator/creation, not denies it. You are being picky. Is that the best you got?

[godrulz]

It is not a matter of not wanting to change mind, but to change it in light of evidence/facts. Message is a paraphrase. It is correct to say it is not literal from the Greek, but it is incorrect to imply it smuggles in endless false doctrines/beliefs/practices. Most of the nattering about modern translations comes from the lunatic fringe KJV-only camp who propagate much misinformation/ignorance/arrogance.

I do not use 'The Message', but have found it refreshing at times when I do read some passages. It is not a study Bible, but a paraphrase. It does not claim to be a translation like NASB, ESV, KJV, etc.

All of us can find stuff on the internet, pro and con. I just get weary of conspiracy theories like Billy Graham is the spawn of Satan, modern versions are perversions and should be used as toilet paper vs KJV, etc. These things affect our integrity and credibility if we do not do our homework before we perpetuate misinformation.